CVE-2018-1593
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 Multi-Cloud Data Encryption (MDE) 2.1 could allow an unauthorized user to manipulate data due to missing file checksums. IBM X-Force ID: 143568.
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 Multi-Cloud Data Encryption (MDE) version 2.1 lacks file checksum validation, allowing an unauthorized user to manipulate encrypted data without detection. This integrity failure means stored data can be altered without the system detecting the tampering.
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>= 2.1, <= 2.1.0.1CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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 IBM Multi-Cloud Data Encryption installationSearch for IBM MDE binaries, services, or installation directories on the system. Check for processes named 'mde' or product-specific paths.Affected if IBM MDE is installed and running on the system
-
Determine the installed IBM MDE versionUse the product's CLI or UI to query the version, or check installation logs and product metadata. Compare the version number against the affected range.Affected if The installed version is between 2.1 and 2.1.0.1 inclusive
-
Locate configuration files for data integrity settingsFind configuration files related to IBM MDE data protection settings. Look for files controlling checksum, HMAC, digital signature, or integrity validation features.Affected if Configuration files exist but contain no checksum or integrity validation settings
-
Inspect integrity validation feature statusCheck if there is a feature toggle, checkbox, or configuration flag for file checksum or integrity validation. Determine if it is disabled, absent, or not functional.Affected if No integrity/checksum validation feature is enabled or configured in the product
-
Verify if stored encrypted data includes integrity metadataExamine a sample of stored encrypted files or database records. Check whether they contain embedded checksums, MAC values, or digital signature fields.Affected if Stored encrypted data has no attached or embedded integrity verification values
A user is affected if IBM MDE version 2.1 through 2.1.0.1 is installed and file checksum/integrity validation is not configured or enabled for stored encrypted data.
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 dataImplement cryptographic file checksums (e.g., HMAC or digital signatures) for all stored data to verify integrity before decryption and use. Add integrity validation as a required step in the data decryption workflow.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation20.0 h
- Testing10.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $11,232.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-1593 — 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-2018-1593 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