CVE-2018-1622
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 Security Privileged Identity Manager Virtual Appliance 2.2.1 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: 144348.
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 confidenceIBM Security Privileged Identity Manager Virtual Appliance 2.2.1 contains a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability that could allow an authenticated or semi-authenticated attacker to trick a trusted user's browser into sending malicious, unauthorized requests to the application. The CVSS 8.8 score indicates high exploitability and significant potential impact on confidentiality and integrity.
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= 2.1.1CVSS 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
- 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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify installed IBM Security Privileged Identity Manager versionAccess the appliance admin console or check the product about/information page. The version is typically displayed in the main dashboard or under System Information in the admin settings.Affected if The installed version matches 2.1.1 exactly.
-
Verify if anti-CSRF tokens are present in formsLog into the web interface and inspect the HTML source of forms (login, user management, or any state-changing forms). Look for a hidden input field containing a token value, or check if forms submit tokens via headers.Affected if Forms lack anti-CSRF token hidden fields or the application does not validate tokens on form submission.
-
Check SameSite cookie attributesUse browser developer tools or a proxy to capture an HTTP response from the application. Inspect the Set-Cookie headers for the session cookies.Affected if Session cookies do not include the SameSite attribute, or the SameSite attribute is set to None without the Secure flag.
-
Verify Referer/Origin header validationSubmit a state-changing request (such as a configuration change) using an external or missing Referer header, either via curl or by modifying an intercepted request. Observe if the request is accepted or rejected.Affected if The application accepts state-changing requests without validating the Referer or Origin header.
A defender is affected if the installed IBM Security Privileged Identity Manager version is 2.1.1 and the application lacks anti-CSRF token validation on state-changing operations or proper SameSite cookie configurations.
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 anti-CSRF tokens on all state-changing operations (forms and AJAX endpoints), validate tokens server-side, and configure SameSite cookie attributes to prevent cross-origin request forgery.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-1622 — 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-2018-1622 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