Emptoris Contract ManagementApplication · Ibm

CVE-2015-5050

HIGH · 8.8 CVSS v3.0 Published 2016-02-15
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
95/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges

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 · unedited
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in IBM Emptoris Contract Management 9.5.0.x before 9.5.0.6 iFix15, 10.0.0.x and 10.0.1.x before 10.0.1.5 iFix5, 10.0.2.x before 10.0.2.7 iFix4, and 10.0.4.x before 10.0.4.0 iFix3 allows remote authenticated users to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests that insert XSS sequences.

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 confidence

CSRF vulnerability in IBM Emptoris Contract Management allows authenticated remote attackers to trick authenticated users into unknowingly submitting malicious requests that insert XSS (Cross-Site Scripting) sequences into the application. Successful exploitation enables authentication hijacking, where an attacker can perform actions on behalf of victim users.

MitigationApply the vendor-supplied iFix patches for the relevant version (9.5.0.6 iFix15, 10.0.1.5 iFix5, 10.0.2.7 iFix4, or 10.0.4.0 iFix3). Implement anti-CSRF tokens on all state-changing forms as a defense-in-depth measure.

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
Emptoris Contract ManagementApplication
Affected:= 9.5.0.0= 9.5.0.1= 9.5.0.2= 9.5.0.3= 9.5.0.4= 9.5.0.5= 9.5.0.6= 10.0.0.0= 10.0.0.1= 10.0.1.0= 10.0.1.1= 10.0.1.2

CVSS 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
High

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify installed version of IBM Emptoris Contract Management
    Check the application version through the admin console, about page, or version manifest file within the installation directory
    Affected if The installed version matches 9.5.0.0 through 9.5.0.6, 10.0.0.0, 10.0.0.1, or 10.0.1.0 through 10.0.1.2
  2. Locate the deployment descriptor configuration
    Find the web.xml file in the deployed application's WEB-INF directory
    Affected if The web.xml does not contain a CSRF protection filter or token validation mechanism
  3. Inspect state-changing forms for anti-CSRF tokens
    Review HTML source of forms that perform actions such as user management, contract creation, or data submission to verify the presence of unique token parameters
    Affected if Forms lack hidden token fields or CSRF tokens in their submissions
  4. Check application configuration for CSRF guard settings
    Search application configuration files for CSRFGuard, CSRF, or cross-site request forgery related settings
    Affected if No CSRF protection framework or anti-CSRF token configuration is found in the application configuration
  5. Verify session handling for state-changing requests
    Confirm that POST, PUT, or DELETE requests for sensitive operations require valid session tokens and do not rely solely on authentication cookies
    Affected if State-changing requests can be completed without anti-CSRF token validation

A user is affected if the installed version matches any of the listed affected versions AND the application lacks anti-CSRF token protection on state-changing forms.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Apply the vendor-supplied iFix patches for the relevant version (9.5.0.6 iFix15, 10.0.1.5 iFix5, 10.0.2.7 iFix4, or 10.0.4.0 iFix3). Implement anti-CSRF tokens on all state-changing forms as a defense-in-depth measure.

Fix this in Emptoris Contract Management Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation16.0 h
  • Testing8.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
32.0 hours of engineering $5,600
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,960.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-5050 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2015-5050 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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