CVE-2019-4667
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 UrbanCode Deploy (UCD) 7.0.5.2 could allow a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information, caused by the failure to properly enable HTTP Strict Transport Security. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability to obtain sensitive information using man in the middle techniques. IBM X-Force ID: 171249.
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 UrbanCode Deploy 7.0.5.2 fails to enable HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), a web security policy mechanism that forces browsers to only access the application over HTTPS. Without HSTS, the application is vulnerable to SSL stripping and man-in-the-middle attacks where an attacker can intercept the initial HTTP request and intercept or modify traffic.
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= 7.0.5.2CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/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 IBM UrbanCode Deploy versionCheck the version by accessing the 'About' page in the UCD web interface, or check the installation directory for a version file. Common paths include <ucd_install>/var/version.properties or checking the initial welcome page.Affected if The installed version is exactly 7.0.5.2
-
Verify HSTS header is absentMake an HTTPS request to the IBM UrbanCode Deploy server and inspect the response headers. Run: curl -I https://<ucd_host>:<port>/ and look for the Strict-Transport-Security header.Affected if The Strict-Transport-Security header is missing from HTTPS responses
-
Check web server or reverse proxy configurationInspect the configuration files for the web server or reverse proxy serving UCD (e.g., nginx.conf, httpd.conf, IBM HTTP Server config, or load balancer settings). Look for HSTS-related directives.Affected if No HSTS configuration (Strict-Transport-Security directive) is found in the web server/reverse proxy config
-
Test for SSL stripping vulnerabilityAttempt an HTTP request (non-HTTPS) to the UCD server: curl -I http://<ucd_host>:<port>/ and verify whether the server redirects to HTTPS or allows the plain HTTP connection.Affected if The server accepts plain HTTP connections without forcing a redirect to HTTPS (no HSTS preload behavior)
You are affected if the installed version is IBM UrbanCode Deploy 7.0.5.2 and the Strict-Transport-Security header is not present in HTTPS responses from the server.
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 dataEnable HSTS on the web server or reverse proxy serving IBM UrbanCode Deploy by adding the Strict-Transport-Security header with an appropriate max-age directive (typically 31536000 seconds for one year).
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,832.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-4667 — 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-2019-4667 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