Security Guardium Big Data IntelligenceApplication · Ibm

CVE-2018-1372

CRITICAL · 9.8 CVSS v3.0 Published 2018-02-27
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
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 Big Data Intelligence (SonarG) 3.1 does not require that users should have strong passwords by default, which makes it easier for attackers to compromise user accounts. IBM X-Force ID: 137772.

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 Big Data Intelligence (SonarG) version 3.1 ships with a default configuration that does not enforce strong password requirements, allowing users to set weak passwords that are vulnerable to brute-force or dictionary attacks.

MitigationEnable and configure strong password complexity requirements in the Guardium Big Data Intelligence administration console, including minimum length, character complexity, and password expiration policies.

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 Guardium Big Data IntelligenceApplication
Affected:= 3.1

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
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/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 Guardium Big Data Intelligence
    Log into the Guardium Big Data Intelligence administration console and navigate to System Settings > About, or run the command 'gu version' or 'productversion' from the CLI if available
    Affected if The installed version is exactly 3.1 - this is the only affected version per the CVE
  2. Access the password policy configuration
    Log into the Guardium Big Data Intelligence administration console and navigate to Security Settings or User Management > Password Policy
    Affected if Password policy settings are accessible and visible in the console - if the page is missing or returns an error, this indicates default/unconfigured state
  3. Verify minimum password length configuration
    In the password policy section, check if a minimum password length requirement is set - look for a field labeled 'Minimum Length' or similar
    Affected if No minimum length is set, or the value is set to a weak value (such as less than 8 characters), or the field is empty/unconfigured
  4. Check character complexity requirements
    In the password policy section, verify if requirements for uppercase letters, lowercase letters, numbers, and special characters are enabled or configured
    Affected if Character complexity requirements are disabled, not configured, or set to none - the field shows 'None' or is unchecked
  5. Confirm password expiration policy
    In the password policy section, check if password expiration period is configured - look for 'Password Expiry' or 'Expiration Days' setting
    Affected if Password expiration is disabled, not set, or set to 'Never' or '0' days

A user is affected if they are running version 3.1 AND the password policy shows default configuration with weak or missing requirements for password length, complexity, or expiration.

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

Enable and configure strong password complexity requirements in the Guardium Big Data Intelligence administration console, including minimum length, character complexity, and password expiration policies.

Fix this in Security Guardium Big Data Intelligence Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation1.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
6.0 hours of engineering $1,060
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,696.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-1372 — 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-2018-1372 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