CVE-2021-20582
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 Security Secret Server up to 11.0 stores sensitive information in URL parameters. This may lead to information disclosure if unauthorized parties have access to the URLs via server logs, referrer header or browser history. IBM X-Force ID: 199328.
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 Security Secret Server up to version 11.0 improperly stores sensitive information (likely secrets, credentials, or session tokens) in URL query parameters. This sensitive data gets logged in server access logs, transmitted in HTTP Referer headers when users navigate to other pages, and persisted in browser history, allowing unauthorized parties with access to these data sources to retrieve the sensitive information.
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< 11.0CVSS 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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 installed version of IBM Security Secret ServerLocate the version information in the product's About page, installation directory, or administrative console. Compare the version number against the affected range (versions prior to 11.0).Affected if The installed version is below 11.0
-
Review server access logs for sensitive query parametersExamine HTTP access logs (typically found in web server logs or IIS logs) for entries containing URL query strings with potential secrets, credentials, or session tokens. Search for patterns like 'password=', 'token=', 'secret=', 'key=', or 'sessionid=' in the URL portion of log entries.Affected if Sensitive data appears in URL query parameters within server access logs
-
Audit HTTP Referer header loggingInspect proxy server logs, WAF logs, or application gateway logs to determine if Referer headers containing sensitive query parameters from Secret Server are being captured and stored.Affected if Referer headers containing Secret Server URLs with query parameters are being logged or captured
-
Verify sensitive operations use GET requestsCapture network traffic or review application configuration to determine if sensitive operations (such as API calls retrieving secrets or credentials) are performed using HTTP GET requests with sensitive data in the URL.Affected if Sensitive operations transmit data via GET requests with query parameters rather than POST requests with request bodies or cookies
-
Check browser history for exposed secretsExamine browser history or have users inspect their browser history for URLs containing sensitive data in query parameters that were accessed while using Secret Server.Affected if Browser history contains URLs with sensitive query parameters from Secret Server
A user is affected if their IBM Security Secret Server installation is version 10.x or lower AND sensitive data is being transmitted via URL query parameters in GET requests.
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.
dbcve · scoped11.0
Migrate sensitive operations from GET requests (which expose parameters in URLs) to POST requests; implement proper session handling using cookies or authorization headers instead of embedding sensitive data in URLs; audit and clear existing server logs and browser histories.
Version 11.0
- Upgrade IBM Security Secret Server to version 11.0 or later
- After upgrading, verify that sensitive data is no longer transmitted via URL parameters
- Review server logs and browser history to confirm no sensitive information was previously exposed
- Ensure referrer header policies are configured appropriately to prevent information leakage
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- 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-2021-20582 — 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-2021-20582 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