CVE-2017-1258
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 Security Guardium 10.0 and 10.1 does not perform an authentication check for a critical resource or functionality allowing anonymous users access to protected areas. IBM X-Force ID: 124685
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 Security Guardium versions 10.0 and 10.1 contain an authentication bypass vulnerability where the application fails to perform authentication checks on certain critical resources or functionalities. This allows unauthenticated or anonymous users to access protected areas of the application that should require valid credentials.
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= 10.0= 10.0.1= 10.1= 10.1.2CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
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 installed Guardium versionLog into the Guardium CLI or UI and navigate to the version information page. Alternatively, run the command: guard_version or cat /etc/version from the console.Affected if The installed version is 10.0, 10.0.1, 10.1, or 10.1.2
-
Confirm vulnerable version rangeCompare the identified version number against the affected versions: 10.0, 10.0.1, 10.1, and 10.1.2. Check both the base version and any installed maintenance packs or patches.Affected if The exact version matches one of the four listed versions (10.0, 10.0.1, 10.1, or 10.1.2)
-
Verify administrative interface exposureReview network configuration and firewall rules to determine if the Guardium administrative web interface (typically port 8443 or 443) is accessible from untrusted networks or the public internet.Affected if Administrative interface is reachable from networks outside the trusted internal range without IP-based access restrictions
-
Test for unauthenticated access to protected resourcesUsing a web browser or HTTP tool, attempt to access known protected endpoints such as /GuardiumUI, /admin, or API paths without providing credentials. Observe if the application returns valid content rather than redirecting to a login page.Affected if Protected pages or APIs return expected content without requiring authentication credentials
You are affected if Guardium version 10.0, 10.0.1, 10.1, or 10.1.2 is installed AND the administrative interface is exposed to untrusted networks, allowing unauthenticated access to protected resources.
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 dataApply the IBM security patch for CVE-2017-1258. As a compensating control, restrict network access to administrative interfaces and sensitive endpoints to trusted IP ranges until the patch can be deployed.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-1258 — 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-2017-1258 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