Security GuardiumApplication · Ibm

CVE-2017-1268

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.0 Published 2018-12-13
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to after 10.5 or later.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
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 Guardium 10 and 10.5 uses a one-way cryptographic hash against an input that should not be reversible, such as a password, but the software does not also use a salt as part of the input. IBM X-Force ID: 124743.

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 Guardium 10 and 10.5 implements password hashing using a one-way cryptographic function (such as MD5 or SHA-1) but fails to incorporate a salt, making the hashes vulnerable to rainbow table attacks and offline password cracking. An attacker with access to the password hash database could use pre-computed hash tables to reverse the hashes and recover plaintext passwords.

MitigationReplace the unsalted cryptographic hash with a modern salted hashing algorithm such as bcrypt, scrypt, or Argon2, and implement a secure password migration mechanism for existing stored hashes.

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 GuardiumApplication
Affected:>= 10.0, <= 10.5

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
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

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

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

  1. Identify the installed Guardium version
    Locate and verify the IBM Security Guardium version number in the system. This is typically accessible through the Guardium web UI under 'System Administration' or via CLI commands that display the product version.
    Affected if The installed version falls within the range of 10.0 to 10.5 (inclusive)
  2. Locate the password storage database or file
    Identify where Guardium stores user authentication credentials. This may be in an internal database, configuration file, or authentication subsystem used by the product.
    Affected if Password hashes are stored in a location accessible to the system or administrative users
  3. Examine the password hash format
    Retrieve a sample password hash from the stored credentials. Inspect the hash to determine whether it uses a one-way cryptographic function (such as MD5 or SHA-1) without any additional random data incorporated into the hash value.
    Affected if The hash appears as a raw MD5 or SHA-1 digest (32 or 40 hexadecimal characters respectively) without any salt component visible in the stored value
  4. Verify salt incorporation in hashing
    Compare multiple stored password hashes to check whether each hash includes a unique salt value preceding or embedded within the hash, or whether all hashes share identical structures indicating no per-password randomization.
    Affected if Each password hash does NOT contain a unique salt value; instead, identical passwords would produce identical hashes
  5. Confirm the authentication mechanism relies on these stored hashes
    Verify that the detected hash format is actively used during user authentication login attempts to validate credentials.
    Affected if The unsalted hash format is used for current user authentication validation

A system is affected if it runs Guardium version 10.0 through 10.5 and stores password hashes using MD5 or SHA-1 without per-password salt values, making the hashes vulnerable to pre-computed rainbow table attacks.

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
Upgrade available Upgrade to a release after 10.5
Interim mitigation

Replace the unsalted cryptographic hash with a modern salted hashing algorithm such as bcrypt, scrypt, or Argon2, and implement a secure password migration mechanism for existing stored hashes.

Fix this in Security Guardium Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation6.0 h
  • Implementation12.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
28.0 hours of engineering $4,980
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,968.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-1268 — 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-2017-1268 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