CVE-2017-1218
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 · uneditedIBM Tivoli Endpoint Manager is vulnerable to cross-site request forgery which could allow an attacker to execute malicious and unauthorized actions transmitted from a user that the website trusts. IBM X-Force ID: 123858.
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 · moderate confidenceIBM Tivoli Endpoint Manager is vulnerable to cross-site request forgery (CSRF). This allows an attacker to trick an authenticated user into unknowingly submitting malicious requests to the application, potentially executing unauthorized administrative actions.
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= 9.2.6= 9.2.7= 9.5= 9.5.5= 9.5.6CVSS 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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify the installed IBM Bigfix Platform versionLocate the Bigfix Platform version through the Bigfix Administration Tool, the Masthead file, or the web console footer. Common locations: BES Console, registry on Windows, or version file in the installation directory.Affected if The installed version matches 9.2.6, 9.2.7, 9.5, 9.5.5, or 9.5.6 exactly.
-
Confirm the web console is accessibleVerify that the Bigfix Web Reports or Web Console component is enabled and reachable. This is required for the CSRF attack vector to be exploitable.Affected if The web console is enabled and accessible to users over HTTP/HTTPS.
-
Inspect form submissions for anti-CSRF tokensLog into the web console and examine the HTML source of state-changing forms (such as those for creating users, modifying settings, or deploying content). Check if each form includes a unique token parameter.Affected if Forms lack anti-CSRF token parameters or hidden fields that validate request authenticity.
-
Check session cookie SameSite attributeUse browser developer tools or a command-line HTTP client to inspect the Set-Cookie headers from the Bigfix server. Look for the SameSite attribute on session cookies.Affected if The SameSite attribute is missing, not set to Strict or Lax, or is set to None without the Secure flag.
-
Verify Origin/Referer header validationSubmit a request from an external origin (simulating a cross-site request) and observe whether the server rejects it based on missing or mismatched Origin/Referer headers.Affected if The server accepts requests without validating the Origin or Referer headers, allowing cross-origin requests to succeed.
You are affected if the installed Bigfix Platform version exactly matches 9.2.6, 9.2.7, 9.5, 9.5.5, or 9.5.6 and the web console is enabled without anti-CSRF protections in place.
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.
From vendor dataImplement anti-CSRF tokens on state-changing operations, configure SameSite cookie attributes, and validate Origin/Referer headers to prevent cross-site request forgery attacks.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 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 $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-1218 — 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-2017-1218 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