CVE-2015-0102
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedIBM Workflow for Bluemix does not set the secure flag for the session cookie in an https session, which makes it easier for remote attackers to capture this cookie by intercepting its transmission within an http session.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceIBM Workflow for Bluemix fails to set the Secure flag on session cookies, causing them to be transmitted over unencrypted HTTP connections where attackers can intercept them via network sniffing or man-in-the-middle attacks.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE dataall versionsCVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Confirm IBM Workflow for Bluemix deploymentIdentify whether IBM Workflow for Bluemix is deployed in your environment. Check running services or application manifests for references to IBM Workflow or the Bluemix workflow service.Affected if IBM Workflow for Bluemix is present in your environment.
-
Capture session cookies from the applicationCapture HTTP traffic to and from the IBM Workflow application endpoint using a proxy, browser developer tools, or network packet capture. Locate the session cookie (typically named JSESSIONID or similar session identifier).Affected if Session cookies are being issued by the IBM Workflow application.
-
Inspect the Set-Cookie header for the Secure attributeExamine the Set-Cookie header returned by the server when the session is established. Check whether the Secure flag is present in the cookie definition.Affected if The Set-Cookie header does NOT contain the Secure attribute (e.g., 'Secure' is missing from 'Set-Cookie: JSESSIONID=...; Secure').
-
Verify HTTP access is enabledCheck whether the application is accessible over plain HTTP (port 80) or only enforced to HTTPS (port 443). Test by attempting to access the workflow URL over http:// rather than https://.Affected if The application accepts connections over unencrypted HTTP.
You are affected if IBM Workflow for Bluemix is deployed and session cookies are transmitted without the Secure flag, allowing potential interception over HTTP.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataConfigure the session cookie to include the Secure attribute, ensuring it is only transmitted over HTTPS connections.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-0102 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2015-0102 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data