Security GuardiumApplication · Ibm

CVE-2020-4193

CRITICAL · 9.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2020-06-04
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
IBM Security Guardium 11.1 uses an inadequate account lockout setting that could allow a remote attacker to brute force account credentials. IBM X-Force ID: 174857.

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 confidence

IBM Security Guardium 11.1 has an inadequate account lockout configuration that fails to properly lock accounts after failed login attempts, enabling remote attackers to systematically brute force user credentials through repeated authentication attempts.

MitigationConfigure appropriate account lockout thresholds and durations in Guardium's authentication policy to lock accounts after a limited number of failed attempts, preventing automated brute force attacks.

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
Security GuardiumApplication
Affected:= 11.1

CVSS 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
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Verify IBM Security Guardium version
    Access the Guardium web UI, go to the 'Administration' or 'System' section, and check the installed version under 'System Info' or 'About'. Alternatively, use the CLI command 'guardium_version' or login to the console and check the version banner.
    Affected if The installed version is exactly 11.1 (vulnerable version)
  2. Check if account lockout policy is enabled
    In Guardium web UI, navigate to 'Configure' > 'System' > 'Security' > 'Authentication Policy' or 'User Management' > 'Security Policy'. Look for account lockout or account locking settings.
    Affected if Account lockout is disabled or not present in the security policy configuration
  3. Verify the failed login attempt threshold
    In the same Authentication Policy or Security Policy section, inspect the setting for maximum failed login attempts before account lockout. This may be labeled as 'Max failed attempts', 'Lockout threshold', or similar.
    Affected if The threshold is set to unlimited/0, or is set to an excessively high number (e.g., greater than 5 attempts), allowing unlimited brute force attempts
  4. Check the account lockout duration
    In the Authentication Policy settings, locate the account lockout duration or lockout time setting. This defines how long an account remains locked after exceeding the failed attempts threshold.
    Affected if The lockout duration is set to 0, never, or is not configured, meaning accounts never automatically unlock or remain vulnerable
  5. Confirm brute force protection status
    Review the overall authentication security configuration to determine if automated account locking after failed attempts is actively enforced. Check if there are any exceptions or bypass rules.
    Affected if The system does not automatically lock accounts after failed authentication attempts, or the brute force protection is not effectively enforced

You are affected if you are running IBM Security Guardium version 11.1 AND your account lockout policy either is disabled, has no threshold limit, or does not actively lock accounts after failed login attempts.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Configure appropriate account lockout thresholds and durations in Guardium's authentication policy to lock accounts after a limited number of failed attempts, preventing automated brute force attacks.

Fix this in Security Guardium Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation1.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
6.0 hours of engineering $1,060
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,696.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-4193 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2020-4193 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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