CVE-2015-4531
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 · uneditedEMC Documentum Content Server before 6.7SP1 P32, 6.7SP2 before P25, 7.0 before P19, 7.1 before P16, and 7.2 before P02 does not properly check authorization for subgroups of privileged groups, which allows remote authenticated sysadmins to gain super-user privileges, and bypass intended restrictions on data access and server actions, via unspecified vectors. NOTE: this vulnerability exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2014-4622.
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 confidenceEMC Documentum Content Server contains an authorization flaw where the system fails to properly check permissions for subgroups of privileged groups. Authenticated sysadmin users can exploit this to escalate privileges to super-user level and bypass intended access controls on data and server operations. This vulnerability is an incomplete fix for the earlier CVE-2014-4622.
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 data= 6.7= 7.0= 7.1= 7.2CVSS 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
- Authentication
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
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.
-
Identify the Documentum Content Server versionLocate the Content Server installation and check the version. On Windows, this is typically found in the installation directory or via the Documentum Server Manager. The version can also be checked by connecting to the repository and querying the dm_server_config object or using the 'dmversion' command if available.Affected if The installed version is 6.7, 7.0, 7.1, or 7.2 exactly (no patches applied).
-
Identify privileged groups configured in the repositoryQuery the Documentum repository for groups that possess super-user or elevated privileges. Use a DQL query such as: SELECT group_name, group_super_user FROM dm_group WHERE group_super_user = 1 OR r_is_group_admin = 1. Examine the results to identify groups like super_users, administrators, or other privileged groups.Affected if The repository contains privileged groups (groups with super_user or administrative capabilities).
-
Check for subgroups within privileged groupsExamine the identified privileged groups for nested subgroup memberships. Query the dm_group object to identify subgroups: SELECT parent_group_name, group_name FROM dm_group WHERE parent_group_name IN (list of privileged groups). Look for any subgroups that exist as children of privileged groups.Affected if Any privileged group contains nested subgroups as members - this is the condition required for the vulnerability to be exploitable.
-
Review super-user account assignmentsQuery for all accounts that hold super-user privileges: SELECT user_name, user_alias, user_privileges FROM dm_user WHERE user_privileges > 0. Compare this list against expected super-user accounts to identify any unexpected or unauthorized super-user accounts that may have been created through privilege escalation.Affected if There are super-user accounts present that were not intentionally created by authorized administrators.
A system is affected if it runs an unpatched version of Documentum Content Server (6.7, 7.0, 7.1, or 7.2) AND has privileged groups configured with subgroups, as this creates the condition for the authorization bypass to be exploited.
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.
dbcve · scopedApply the appropriate patch for each affected version (P32 for 6.7SP1, P25 for 6.7SP2, P19 for 7.0, P16 for 7.1, P02 for 7.2) and verify that subgroup authorization controls function correctly post-patch.
Apply the minimum required patch for your version: 6.7SP1 P32, 6.7SP2 P25, 7.0 P19, 7.1 P16, or 7.2 P02
- Identify the currently installed Documentum Content Server version and service pack level (e.g., 6.7SP1, 7.0, etc.)
- For version 6.7SP1: Apply patch P32 or later
- For version 6.7SP2: Apply patch P25 or later
- For version 7.0: Apply patch P19 or later
- For version 7.1: Apply patch P16 or later
- For version 7.2: Apply patch P02 or later
- After patching, verify that the authorization check for subgroups of privileged groups now properly restricts super-user privilege escalation
- Test that the fix does not break legitimate administrative functions
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-4531 — 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-2015-4531 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