CVE-2021-29645
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 · uneditedHitachi JP1/IT Desktop Management 2 Agent 9 through 12 calls the SendMessageTimeoutW API with arbitrary arguments via a local pipe, leading to a local privilege escalation vulnerability. An attacker who exploits this issue could execute arbitrary code on the local system.
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 confidenceHitachi JP1/IT Desktop Management 2 Agent versions 9-12 contains a local privilege escalation vulnerability where the SendMessageTimeoutW Windows API is called with arbitrary arguments via a local named pipe, allowing an authenticated local attacker to execute arbitrary code with elevated privileges.
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>= 02-50, <= 02-50-07>= 03-00, <= 03-00-12>= 04-00, <= 04-00-17>= 04-50, <= 04-50-16>= 09-50, <= 09-50-03>= 10-01, <= 10-01-06>= 10-10, <= 10-10-16>= 10-50, <= 10-50-11>= 08-00, <= 08-00-04>= 08-10, <= 08-10-05>= 08-51, <= 08-51-18>= 09-00, <= 09-00-07>= 09-50, <= 09-50-09>= 09-51, <= 09-51-15>= 08-00, <= 08-00-05>= 08-10, <= 08-10-06>= 08-51, <= 08-51-19>= 09-00, <= 09-00-09>= 09-50, <= 09-50-09>= 09-51, <= 09-51-13>= 08-00, <= 08-00-07>= 08-10, <= 08-10-06>= 08-51, <= 08-51-19>= 09-00, <= 09-00-09>= 09-50, <= 09-50-09>= 09-51, <= 09-51-13>= 09-50, <= 09-50-03>= 09-51, <= 09-51-05>= 10-00, <= 10-00-02>= 10-01, <= 10-01-05>= 10-02, <= 10-02-05>= 10-10, <= 10-10-16>= 10-50, <= 10-50-12>= 11-00, <= 11-00-11>= 11-01, <= 11-01-12>= 11-10, <= 11-10-10>= 11-50, <= 11-50-08>= 11-51, <= 11-51-10>= 12-00, <= 12-00-09>= 12-10, <= 12-10-07>= 12-50, <= 12-50-03CVSS 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.
-
Identify installed Hitachi JP1/IT Desktop Management productsOpen Programs and Features (appwiz.cpl) or check Add/Remove Programs. Look for any Hitachi software matching the product names: JP1/IT Desktop Management Manager, JP1/IT Desktop Management 2 Manager, IT Operations Director, Job Management Partner 1/Remote Control Agent, Job Management Partner 1/Software Distribution Client, Job Management Partner 1/Software Distribution Manager.Affected if Any of these Hitachi products are listed in installed programs
-
Determine the installed version numberRight-click the installed application in Programs and Features and select Change, or look for a version property. Alternatively, check the executable properties of the main service binary (typically located in the Hitachi installation directory under Program Files).Affected if The version falls within any of the affected ranges provided in the CVE advisory
-
Verify the vulnerable service is runningOpen Services (services.msc) and locate the Hitachi JP1/IT Desktop Management or Job Management Partner 1 service. Confirm the status is Running. The named pipe only exists when the service is active.Affected if The service is installed and running on the system
-
Confirm local authenticated accessVerify that local user accounts exist on the system. The vulnerability requires an authenticated local attacker to interact with the named pipe.Affected if Local user accounts are present on the system (standard for most Windows environments)
The environment is affected if any Hitachi JP1/IT Desktop Management product is installed with a version matching the affected ranges AND the corresponding service is running, allowing a local authenticated user to potentially exploit the named pipe for privilege escalation.
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 vendor patch from Hitachi for JP1/IT Desktop Management 2 Agent. As a compensating control, limit local user access and monitor for suspicious pipe communication activity.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-29645 — 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-2021-29645 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