CVE-2023-50963
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 Storage Defender - Data Protect 1.0.0 through 1.4.1 is vulnerable to HTTP header injection, caused by improper validation of input by the HOST headers. This could allow an attacker to conduct various attacks against the vulnerable system, including cross-site scripting, cache poisoning or session hijacking. IBM X-Force ID: 276101.
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 confidenceIBM Storage Defender Data Protect versions 1.0.0 through 1.4.1 is vulnerable to HTTP header injection due to improper validation of HOST header input. An attacker could inject malicious headers to conduct cross-site scripting, cache poisoning, or session hijacking 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>= 1.0.0, <= 1.4.1CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/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.
-
Confirm IBM Storage Defender Data Protect is installedCheck for the product installation directory or running service. On Windows, look for installation under Program Files/IBM. On Linux, check /opt/ibm/ or use 'ps aux | grep -i defender' to find running processes.Affected if The product is installed and running.
-
Identify the installed versionCheck the version file or use the product's CLI/UI to display version information. Common locations: installation_directory/version.txt, or run 'dp version' or similar if CLI is available.Affected if Installed version is between 1.0.0 and 1.4.1 inclusive.
-
Verify the web management interface is enabledCheck if the Data Protect web console or API is accessible on typical ports (usually 8443, 9443, or configured HTTP/HTTPS ports). Check configuration files for web server settings or run 'netstat -an | grep -E "8443|9443"' to identify listening ports.Affected if The web interface is enabled and accessible on the network.
-
Test for HOST header injection vulnerabilitySend a crafted HTTP request with a malicious HOST header to the web interface, such as 'HOST: example.com\r\nX-Injected-Header: test' and observe if the header is reflected in responses or stored in logs/cache.Affected if The server accepts and reflects arbitrary HOST header values without validation.
You are affected if IBM Storage Defender Data Protect version 1.0.0 through 1.4.1 is installed with the web management interface enabled and the server accepts unsanitized HOST header input.
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 vendor patches when available; otherwise, implement strict validation of the HOST header on the server side or deploy a WAF to filter malicious header injection attempts.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-50963 — 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-2023-50963 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