Security Identity ManagerApplication · Ibm

CVE-2021-29687

MEDIUM · 5.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2021-05-20
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
62/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
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 Identity Manager 7.0.2 could allow a remote user to enumerate usernames due to a difference of responses from valid and invalid login attempts. IBM X-Force ID: 200018

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 confidence

IBM Security Identity Manager 7.0.2 returns different HTTP responses or error messages for valid usernames versus invalid usernames during login attempts. This allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to enumerate valid user accounts by observing subtle differences in authentication failure messages.

MitigationConfigure the application to return identical error responses (e.g., 'Invalid username or password') for both invalid usernames and invalid passwords, regardless of whether the username exists.

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 Identity ManagerApplication
Affected:= 6.0.2

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
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 checks

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

  1. Identify IBM Security Identity Manager installation
    Check for the product by reviewing installed software listings, service banners, or consulting system documentation. Look for processes named 'ISIM' or services running on typical ISIM ports (e.g., 9080, 9443).
    Affected if IBM Security Identity Manager is present on the system
  2. Determine installed version
    Check the version of IBM Security Identity Manager by reviewing application configuration files, About pages in the admin console, or version files in the installation directory. Compare against the affected version 6.0.2.
    Affected if The installed version is 6.0.2
  3. Test login response for non-existent username
    Attempt a login with a clearly invalid username that does not exist (e.g., 'nonexistentuser123') and note the exact error message returned.
    Affected if An error message is returned
  4. Test login response for valid username with wrong password
    Attempt a login using a known-valid username (e.g., an administrator account) with an incorrect password and note the exact error message returned. Compare word-for-word with the response from Step 3.
    Affected if The error message differs from Step 3 in wording, timing, or format (e.g., 'User does not exist' vs 'Invalid password' vs generic 'Invalid credentials')
  5. Verify response consistency across multiple attempts
    Repeat Steps 3 and 4 multiple times to confirm the responses are consistent and not randomized.
    Affected if Differences in responses are reproducible and consistent between valid and invalid usernames

The environment is affected if IBM Security Identity Manager version 6.0.2 is installed AND the login error messages differ between non-existent usernames and valid usernames with wrong passwords.

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 the application to return identical error responses (e.g., 'Invalid username or password') for both invalid usernames and invalid passwords, regardless of whether the username exists.

Fix this in Security Identity Manager Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
12.0 hours of engineering $2,130
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,408.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-29687 — 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-2021-29687 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