dbcve.org
Security Key Lifecycle ManagerApplication · Ibm

CVE-2017-1672

HIGH · 8.8 CVSS v3.0 Published 2018-01-04
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
95/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges

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 Tivoli Key Lifecycle Manager 2.6 and 2.7 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: 133639.

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 Tivoli Key Lifecycle Manager versions 2.6 and 2.7 is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF). This allows authenticated users to be tricked into unknowingly executing unauthorized actions through malicious requests, as the application fails to validate the legitimacy of state-changing requests.

MitigationApply the IBM patch for this vulnerability. Additionally, implement anti-CSRF tokens on all state-changing operations and validate request origins via SameSite cookies or Referer header checks.

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 Key Lifecycle ManagerApplication
Affected:= 2.6.0= 2.6.0.1= 2.6.0.2= 2.6.0.3= 2.7.0= 2.7.0.1= 2.7.0.2

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
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 checks

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

  1. Identify the installed version of IBM Security Key Lifecycle Manager
    Access the product's web console and navigate to the About or Version information page, or check the installed packages using the system's package manager if running on a known OS
    Affected if The installed version matches 2.6.0, 2.6.0.1, 2.6.0.2, 2.6.0.3, 2.7.0, 2.7.0.1, or 2.7.0.2 exactly
  2. Confirm the product is accessible over the network
    Verify that the IBM Key Lifecycle Manager web interface is reachable and you have valid authentication credentials
    Affected if The application is exposed and accepts authenticated sessions, creating the conditions for CSRF exploitation
  3. Inspect state-changing requests for anti-CSRF tokens
    Log into the web interface and capture the HTTP request when performing a state-changing action (such as creating a user, modifying a key, or changing a configuration). Examine the request headers and body for a token parameter that changes per session
    Affected if State-changing requests lack a unique anti-CSRF token parameter and the application does not validate the request origin
  4. Check session cookie attributes
    Using browser developer tools or a proxy, inspect the session cookies set by the application. Look for the SameSite attribute in the Set-Cookie headers
    Affected if Session cookies do not have the SameSite attribute set to Strict or Lax, leaving the application vulnerable to CSRF from cross-site requests
  5. Verify Referer or Origin header validation
    Submit a state-changing request with a mismatched or missing Referer or Origin header and observe whether the application accepts or rejects the request
    Affected if The application accepts state-changing requests without validating that the Referer or Origin header matches the expected origin

A user is affected if their installed version exactly matches one of the listed versions AND the application lacks anti-CSRF token validation, SameSite cookie protection, or Referer/Origin header checks on state-changing operations.

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 IBM patch for this vulnerability. Additionally, implement anti-CSRF tokens on all state-changing operations and validate request origins via SameSite cookies or Referer header checks.

Fix this in Security Key Lifecycle Manager Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation12.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
24.0 hours of engineering $4,200
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,720.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-1672 — 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-2017-1672 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