CVE-2021-38978
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 Tivoli Key Lifecycle Manager 3.0, 3.0.1, 4.0, and 4.1 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: 212783.
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 analysisSensitive information is transmitted over an unencrypted channel, so anyone positioned on the network path can read it as it passes. Credentials, tokens, and personal data are the usual casualties. The fix is to encrypt everything sensitive in transit with TLS and to remove any plaintext fallback.
General guidance for the cleartext transmission class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
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= 4.1.0= 4.1.0.1= 4.1.1>= 3.0, <= 3.0.0.4>= 3.0.1, <= 3.0.1.5>= 4.0, <= 4.0.0.3= 4.1.0= 4.1.0.1= 4.1.1CVSS 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
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 · scopedSecurity Key Lifecycle Manager: 3.0.0.5, 3.0.1.6, 4.0.0.4, or 4.1.0.1 and later; Security Guardium Key Lifecycle Manager: 4.1.0.2 or later
- 1. Identify the current version of IBM Security Key Lifecycle Manager (SKLM) or Security Guardium Key Lifecycle Manager by checking the product documentation or system information
- 2. Review the IBM Support page at https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/6516050 for the specific security bulletin and available fixes
- 3. Upgrade to a fixed release version that addresses CVE-2021-38978 - versions that received the security fix for enabling HSTS
- 4. After upgrading, verify that HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) is properly enabled by checking the server configuration
- 5. Test the fix by attempting to access the application over HTTP and confirming it redirects to HTTPS with HSTS headers present
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-38978 — 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-2021-38978 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