dbcve.org
Security Access ManagerApplication · Ibm

CVE-2016-3025

HIGH · 8.1 CVSS v3.0 Published 2016-11-25
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
90/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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
IBM Security Access Manager for Mobile 8.x before 8.0.1.4 IF3 and Security Access Manager 9.x before 9.0.1.0 IF5 do not properly restrict failed login attempts, which makes it easier for remote attackers to obtain access via a brute-force approach.

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

IBM Security Access Manager for Mobile 8.x before 8.0.1.4 IF3 and Security Access Manager 9.x before 9.0.1.0 IF5 fail to properly restrict failed login attempts, allowing remote attackers to conduct brute-force attacks to guess valid user credentials.

MitigationApply the vendor-supplied interim fixes (IF3 for 8.x and IF5 for 9.x) which implement proper account lockout policies and/or rate limiting on authentication endpoints.

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
Security Access ManagerApplication
Affected:= 9.0.0= 9.0.0.1= 9.0.1.0
Security Access Manager For MobileApplication
Affected:= 8.0.0.0= 8.0.0.1= 8.0.0.2= 8.0.0.3= 8.0.0.4= 8.0.0.5= 8.0.1= 8.0.1.2= 8.0.1.3= 8.0.1.4

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
High
Privileges
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/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 the installed IBM Security Access Manager version
    Run 'manageversions.sh' or 'pdadmin -version' command, or check the installation directory for version files. On Windows, check the registry or installation logs.
    Affected if The installed version is 8.0.0.0 through 8.0.1.4, or 9.0.0, 9.0.0.1, or 9.0.1.0 without the respective interim fixes applied.
  2. Verify account lockout configuration in the administrative console
    Log into the ISAM administrative console and navigate to Security > User and Group Management > User Security Settings, or use 'pdadmin' command 'pdadmin> user show' to inspect account lockout attributes.
    Affected if Account lockout is disabled or set to a very high threshold (e.g., more than 10 failed attempts) or set to zero (never lock out).
  3. Check authentication policy settings via command line
    Use the 'stanza' command or inspect the 'isamaccesscontrol.json' configuration file in the configuration directory to review the authentication policy for maximum failed attempts.
    Affected if The authentication policy does not enforce account lockout after a reasonable number of failed attempts (e.g., the maxFailedAttempts attribute is missing, null, or set to a value allowing unlimited guesses).
  4. Inspect HTTP response headers for rate limiting on login endpoints
    Send multiple failed login requests to the login endpoint (typically /mga/sps/oauth/oauth20/login) and observe if the server returns rate-limiting headers (e.g., X-Rate-Limit-Limit) or HTTP 429 responses.
    Affected if No rate limiting is enforced and the server continues to accept authentication attempts without throttling after repeated failures.

A user is affected if the installed version falls within 8.0.0.0-8.0.1.4 or 9.0.0-9.0.1.0 without the respective IF3 or IF5 fixes AND no account lockout or rate limiting is configured on authentication endpoints.

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 interim fixes (IF3 for 8.x and IF5 for 9.x) which implement proper account lockout policies and/or rate limiting on authentication endpoints.

Fix this in Security Access Manager Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation2.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
7.0 hours of engineering $1,240
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,984.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-3025 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

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-2016-3025 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