CVE-2015-4533
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 after creation of an object, which allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary code with super-user privileges via a custom script. NOTE: this vulnerability exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2014-2513.
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 bypass vulnerability where proper authorization checks are not performed after object creation. This allows any remote authenticated user to execute arbitrary code with super-user privileges by leveraging custom scripts, representing a privilege escalation from authenticated user to superuser.
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 versionRun the following query against the Content Server database: SELECT r_object_id, object_name, server_version FROM dm_server_config; or check the installer/readme files for the installed version number.Affected if The installed version is 6.7, 7.0, 7.1, or 7.2 without the corresponding patch (6.7SP1 P32+, 6.7SP2 P25+, 7.0 P19+, 7.1 P16+, or 7.2 P02+)
-
Verify custom script functionality is accessibleCheck if the dm_ExecuteMethod or custom script execution objects are available to non-superuser accounts. Query: SELECT object_name, owner_name FROM dm_method WHERE r_object_type='dm_method' AND owner_name NOT IN ('dm_owner','repository_service');Affected if Authenticated non-superuser users have create or execute permissions on dm_method or custom script objects
-
Review user role assignmentsQuery the user/group membership to determine if standard authenticated users have been granted elevated privileges: SELECT r_object_id, user_name, user_login_name FROM dm_user WHERE user_privilege < 4;Affected if Standard authenticated users have user_privilege level 4 or higher (superuser equivalent) without explicit authorization
-
Examine recent custom script executions in audit logsQuery the audit trail for method execution events: SELECT audit_event, user_name, time_stamp FROM dm_audit_object WHERE audit_event LIKE '%execute%method%' ORDER BY time_stamp DESC;Affected if Non-superuser accounts have executed methods/scripts that require superuser privileges
-
Check for unauthorized custom methodsList all custom methods/scripts in the repository: SELECT r_object_id, object_name, method_type FROM dm_method WHERE method_type='custom';Affected if Custom methods exist that were not created by the repository service owner
A user is affected if they are running an unpatched Content Server version (6.7, 7.0, 7.1, or 7.2 without the noted patches) AND custom script execution functionality is accessible to authenticated users, enabling privilege escalation to superuser.
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 vendor patches (6.7SP1 P32, 6.7SP2 P25, 7.0 P19, 7.1 P16, or 7.2 P02 or later) to address the incomplete fix from CVE-2014-2513. Prior to patching, limit Content Server access to trusted users only and monitor for unauthorized custom script execution.
Upgrade to 6.7SP1 P32+/6.7SP2 P25+/7.0 P19+/7.1 P16+/7.2 P02+ depending on your base release line
- 1. Identify the currently installed Documentum Content Server version and patch level.
- 2. Based on your current version, upgrade to the minimum patched release: for 6.7 go to 6.7SP1 P32 or 6.7SP2 P25 or later; for 7.0 upgrade to P19 or later; for 7.1 upgrade to P16 or later; for 7.2 upgrade to P02 or later.
- 3. After upgrading, verify that the patch was applied correctly by checking the Content Server version information.
- 4. Test critical workflows to ensure normal operation after the upgrade.
- 5. Since this vulnerability allows privilege escalation via custom scripts, review existing custom scripts and DMCL configurations for any unauthorized or suspicious content.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing10.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $9,504.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-4533 — 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-2015-4533 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