CVE-2015-4532
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 and does not properly restrict object types, which allows remote authenticated users to run save RPC commands with super-user privileges, and consequently execute arbitrary code, via unspecified vectors. NOTE: this vulnerability exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2014-2514.
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 versions before 6.7SP1 P32, 6.7SP2 P25, 7.0 P19, 7.1 P16, and 7.2 P02 contain improper authorization checks and fail to properly restrict object types, allowing authenticated remote users to execute save RPC commands with super-user privileges and achieve arbitrary code execution. This vulnerability stems from an incomplete fix for CVE-2014-2514.
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 Documentum Content Server versionQuery the Content Server version using the dm_get_version API or check the installation via the Documentum Administrator console, or run 'dmversion' command if available in the bin directoryAffected if The version is 6.7 before SP1 P32, 6.7SP1 before P32, 6.7SP2 before P25, 7.0 before P19, 7.1 before P16, or 7.2 before P02
-
Check installed patches and patch levelList installed patches using the Documentum patch management tool or check the patch directory (typically $DOCUMENTUM_HOME/patch) for applied patchesAffected if No patches are installed or the patch level is below P32 for 6.7SP1, P25 for 6.7SP2, P19 for 7.0, P16 for 7.1, or P02 for 7.2
-
Verify RPC service is enabledCheck the Content Server configuration files (typically server.ini or dm_cluster_config) for RPC service settings, or verify via Documentum Administrator that RPC operations are permittedAffected if RPC service is enabled (default configuration) - this is the attack vector for the authorization bypass
-
Confirm server accepts save RPC commandsReview server logs for recent save RPC calls or test with a low-privilege authenticated account attempting a save operation on privileged objects if testing is permittedAffected if The server processes save RPC requests from authenticated users without proper super-user privilege validation
The environment is affected if Documentum Content Server version is 6.7, 7.0, 7.1, or 7.2 and the corresponding patch level (P32 for 6.7SP1, P25 for 6.7SP2, P19 for 7.0, P16 for 7.1, P02 for 7.2) has not been applied.
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 vendor-supplied patches for the respective Documentum Content Server version (6.7SP1 P32+, 6.7SP2 P25+, 7.0 P19+, 7.1 P16+, or 7.2 P02+) to address the authorization bypass. Prioritize patching given the CVSS 9 severity and potential for complete system compromise.
Content Server 6.7SP1 P32+, 6.7SP2 P25+, 7.0 P19+, 7.1 P16+, or 7.2 P02+
- 1. Identify the currently installed Documentum Content Server version and patch level using the dm_version or server version utilities
- 2. For Content Server 6.7: Apply patch P32 (for SP1) or P25 or later (for SP2)
- 3. For Content Server 7.0: Apply patch P19 or later
- 4. For Content Server 7.1: Apply patch P16 or later
- 5. For Content Server 7.2: Apply patch P02 or later
- 6. Obtain the appropriate patch from EMC/Dell EMC support portal (requires active support contract)
- 7. Stop all Documentum services before applying the patch
- 8. Apply the patch following the included README/patch installation instructions
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-4532 — 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-2015-4532 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