CVE-2019-4252
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 Rational Collaborative Lifecycle Management 6.0 through 6.0.6.1 could allow a remote attacker to traverse directories on the system. An attacker could send a specially-crafted URL request containing "dot dot" sequences (/../) to view arbitrary files on the system. IBM X-Force ID: 159883.
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 Rational Collaborative Lifecycle Management versions 6.0 through 6.0.6.1 contains a path traversal vulnerability where the application fails to properly sanitize URL input containing '../' sequences, allowing remote attackers to access files outside the web root directory and read arbitrary files on the system.
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>= 6.0, <= 6.0.6.1>= 6.0, <= 6.0.6.1>= 6.0, <= 6.0.6.1>= 6.0, <= 6.0.6.1>= 6.0, <= 6.0.6.1>= 6.0, <= 6.0.1>= 6.0, <= 6.0.6.1CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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 IBM Rational productCheck the application name in the IBM Jazz-based server admin console, installation directory, or running services. Common install paths include /opt/IBM/JazzTeamServer or C:\Program Files\IBM\JazzTeamServer. Look for product-specific directories such as clm, rm, dm, qm, or rtc.Affected if The product is one of: Rational Collaborative Lifecycle Management, Rational Doors Next Generation, Rational Engineering Lifecycle Manager, Rational Quality Manager, Rational Rhapsody Design Manager, Rational Software Architect Design Manager, or Rational Team Concert
-
Locate the version information fileCheck for the version details in the about.html file within the web application root (typically at /admin/about.html or /jts/admin/about.html), or examine the IBM Installation Manager installed.xml file in the installation directory.Affected if A version file exists and can be read
-
Determine the installed version numberRead the version from the about page (accessible via the web UI at <server>/jts/admin/about.html or similar path depending on deployment) or from the installation manifest files. Look for a version string in the format X.Y.Z.Affected if The installed version is exposed and can be compared
-
Compare version against affected rangeCheck if the installed version falls within: 6.0 to 6.0.6.1 (for CLM, DNG, RELM, RQM, Rhapsody DM, RTC) or 6.0 to 6.0.1 (for RSA DM). Note that version 6.0.6.1 is the upper bound for most products.Affected if The installed version is 6.0.x where x is 0 through 6.1, or specifically 6.0.0 through 6.0.6.1 for most products, or 6.0.0 through 6.0.1 for RSA Design Manager
-
Verify web application is accessibleConfirm the Rational CLM web application is running and reachable via HTTP/HTTPS. The path traversal vulnerability is exploitable through the web interface, so the application must be accessible for the flaw to be exercised.Affected if The web application is running and accepting requests
A user is affected if they have any of the listed IBM Rational products installed with a version between 6.0 and the specified upper bound (6.0.6.1 for most products, 6.0.1 for RSA Design Manager) and the web application is accessible.
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 the IBM patch for CVE-2019-4252 to the affected Rational CLM installation. If immediate patching is not feasible, implement URL filtering at the web application firewall or reverse proxy level to block requests containing '../' sequences.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-4252 — 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-2019-4252 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