CVE-2019-4473
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 · uneditedMultiple binaries in IBM SDK, Java Technology Edition 7, 7R, and 8 on the AIX platform use insecure absolute RPATHs, which may facilitate code injection and privilege elevation by local users. IBM X-Force ID: 163984.
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 confidenceMultiple binaries in IBM SDK Java Technology Edition 7, 7R, and 8 on AIX contain insecure absolute RPATH (runtime library path) entries pointing to world-writable directories. This allows local unprivileged users to place malicious shared libraries in the RPATH location, causing the vulnerable binaries to load attacker-controlled code with the privileges of the executing user, potentially leading to privilege elevation.
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= 7.0.0.0= 7.1.4.50= 8.0CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check IBM Java installation and versionRun 'java -version' or check /opt/ibm/java* directory existence on AIXAffected if IBM Java version 7.0.0.0, 7.1.4.50, or 8.0 is installed on AIX
-
Locate IBM Java binariesList executables in the IBM Java bin directory, typically under /opt/ibm/java*/bin/Affected if IBM Java binaries such as java, javac, or other executables exist in the installation directory
-
Extract RPATH entries from binariesUse 'dump -Hv <binary_path>' or 'objdump -x <binary_path>' on AIX to display RPATH headersAffected if Binaries contain absolute RPATH entries in their executable headers
-
Verify RPATH directories are world-writableCheck permissions on each directory listed in RPATH using 'ls -ld <rpath_directory>'Affected if Any RPATH directory has permissions allowing write access to unprivileged users (e.g., 777 or wide-ranging group/owner permissions)
User is affected if running IBM Java 7.0.0.0, 7.1.4.50, or 8.0 on AIX and any IBM Java binary has an absolute RPATH pointing to a world-writable directory, allowing privilege escalation via library injection.
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 dataRebuild or patch affected binaries to either remove RPATH entries entirely, replace absolute RPATHs with RUNPATH, or ensure RPATH locations are secured against write access by unprivileged users. Alternatively, upgrade to a patched IBM JDK version if available.
- Consultation6.0 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 $7,680.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-4473 — 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-2019-4473 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