Security GuardiumApplication · Ibm

CVE-2017-1272

MEDIUM · 5.3 CVSS v3.0 Published 2018-12-17
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to after 10.5 or later.
See remediation →
62/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
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 10.0 and 10.5 stores sensitive information in URL parameters. This may lead to information disclosure if unauthorized parties have access to the URLs via server logs, referrer header or browser history. IBM X-Force ID: 124747. IBM X-Force ID: 124747.

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 confidence

IBM Security Guardium 10.0 and 10.5 stores sensitive information in URL parameters, allowing unauthorized parties to access this data through server logs, referrer headers, or browser history. This exposes potentially confidential data to anyone with access to these logging and tracking mechanisms.

MitigationAvoid storing sensitive information in URL parameters by switching to POST requests for form submissions, using session-based storage, or implementing proper encryption for sensitive data that must be transmitted.

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
Low
Integrity
None
Availability
None

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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
    Access the Guardium administration console or use the command line interface to retrieve the product version. Look for version information in the system status or about section.
    Affected if The installed version is 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, or 10.5.
  2. Review server access logs for sensitive URL parameters
    Examine Guardium server logs (typically found in /var/log or the Guardium data directory) for GET requests containing sensitive-looking parameters such as passwords, tokens, credit card numbers, or PII in the query string.
    Affected if Sensitive data appears in URL query strings within server logs.
  3. Inspect browser referrer headers for exposed data
    Check web server configuration or proxy logs to see if referrer headers are being logged or transmitted, which would expose URL parameters from protected pages to third parties.
    Affected if Referrer headers are logged or propagated containing URLs with sensitive query parameters.
  4. Examine browser history exposure potential
    Review web application forms and authentication mechanisms to determine if sensitive data is submitted via GET requests rather than POST, which would cause data to be stored in browser history.
    Affected if Forms or authentication endpoints use GET requests to transmit sensitive information.
  5. Verify sensitive parameter handling configuration
    Review Guardium configuration settings for web applications to confirm whether sensitive data in URLs is being prevented or if proper encryption/session-based storage is configured.
    Affected if Configuration allows sensitive data to be transmitted via URL parameters without protection.

A user is affected if Guardium version is 10.0-10.5 and sensitive information is being transmitted through URL parameters, which can be observed in server logs, referrer headers, or browser history.

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

Avoid storing sensitive information in URL parameters by switching to POST requests for form submissions, using session-based storage, or implementing proper encryption for sensitive data that must be transmitted.

Fix this in Security Guardium Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
14.0 hours of engineering $2,490
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-1272 — 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-2017-1272 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