CVE-2019-11669
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 · uneditedModifiable read only check box In Micro Focus Service Manager, versions 9.60p1, 9.61, 9.62. This vulnerability could be exploited to allow unauthorized modification of data.
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 confidenceA vulnerability in Micro Focus Service Manager versions 9.60p1, 9.61, and 9.62 allows users to modify fields that should be read-only. The application's access control mechanism fails to properly enforce read-only restrictions on certain data fields, enabling unauthorized modification of protected data.
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= 9.60= 9.61= 9.62CVSS 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
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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 the installed Service Manager versionLocate the version information for your Micro Focus Service Manager installation, typically found in the product about section, installation directory, or system information panelAffected if The installed version is 9.60, 9.61, or 9.62 specifically (note: the CVE lists these exact versions, not ranges)
-
Review the access control configurationExamine the role-based access control (RBAC) settings and field-level security definitions within Service Manager to identify which fields are designated as read-onlyAffected if Read-only field restrictions are configured but the system allows modifications due to enforcement failures
-
Check user role assignmentsReview which user roles exist in your environment and confirm whether any non-privileged users have been assigned permissions that might allow modification of protected fieldsAffected if Users with standard or limited roles can access interfaces that permit modification of fields marked as read-only
-
Examine audit and modification logsSearch the system audit logs for instances where fields designated as read-only were modified, particularly by users who should not have such permissionsAffected if Audit logs show modifications to protected fields by users lacking explicit write access to those fields
You are affected if your installed Service Manager version is exactly 9.60, 9.61, or 9.62 AND read-only field restrictions are configured but users can still modify protected fields.
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 dataApply vendor patches when available. In the interim, implement compensating controls such as strict server-side validation and role-based access restrictions to prevent unauthorized modifications to read-only fields.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-11669 — 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-2019-11669 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