CVE-2024-45662
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 Safer Payments 6.4.0.00 through 6.4.2.07, 6.5.0.00 through 6.5.0.05, and 6.6.0.00 through 6.6.0.03 could allow a remote attacker to cause a denial of service due to improper allocation of resources.
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 Safer Payments versions 6.4.0.00-6.4.2.07, 6.5.0.00-6.5.0.05, and 6.6.0.00-6.6.0.03 contain a denial of service vulnerability where improper resource allocation allows a remote attacker to exhaust server resources, causing the system to become unavailable.
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>= 6.4.0.00, < 6.4.2.08>= 6.5.0.00, < 6.5.0.06>= 6.6.0.00, < 6.6.0.03CVSS 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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 the installed IBM Safer Payments versionRun the command to display the product version, typically via the system console or by checking the installed packages. On Linux systems, this may be found in /opt/ibm/sp/etc/version or via 'spversion' CLI tool if available. Consult IBM documentation for your deployment method.Affected if The installed version falls within 6.4.0.00-6.4.2.07, 6.5.0.00-6.5.0.05, or 6.6.0.00-6.6.0.03.
-
Compare version against fixed releasesCheck if the version is lower than 6.4.2.08, 6.5.0.06, or 6.6.0.03. Any version below these thresholds in each respective major.minor branch is affected.Affected if The installed version is less than the first fixed version in its release line (6.4.2.08, 6.5.0.06, or 6.6.0.03).
-
Determine network exposure of the Safer Payments interfaceReview firewall rules and network configuration to identify whether the Safer Payments management or transaction ports are accessible from untrusted networks. Check which interfaces the service binds to (typically ports 8443, 8444, or custom ports configured during installation).Affected if The Safer Payments service is reachable from external or untrusted networks without proper network segmentation.
-
Monitor for resource exhaustion symptomsUse system monitoring tools (top, htop, vmstat) or IBM monitoring utilities to observe CPU, memory, and network connection counts on the Safer Payments host. Check for abnormally high connection counts or memory usage that persists.Affected if The system shows signs of resource exhaustion such as excessive concurrent connections, high memory usage, or service unavailability that correlates with external requests.
You are affected if your installed Safer Payments version is 6.4.0.00-6.4.2.07, 6.5.0.00-6.5.0.05, or 6.6.0.00-6.6.0.03 and the service is network-accessible to remote attackers.
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 · scoped6.4.2.086.5.0.066.6.0.03
Apply the appropriate IBM patch or upgrade to a fixed version of Safer Payments. Review resource limits and implement monitoring for unusual resource consumption patterns as a defensive measure until the patch can be deployed.
Upgrade to 6.4.2.08, 6.5.0.06, or 6.6.0.03 depending on your current major version branch
- Identify the currently installed IBM Safer Payments version using the system administration interface or command line tools
- Review the IBM Safer Payments upgrade documentation for your current version branch
- Plan maintenance window as upgrade may require system restart
- Backup current configuration and data according to IBM backup procedures
- Download the appropriate fixed version: 6.4.2.08 for 6.4.x, 6.5.0.06 for 6.5.x, or 6.6.0.03 for 6.6.x
- Execute the upgrade following IBM's standard upgrade procedure for the specific version
- Verify the upgrade completed successfully and the new version is running
- Confirm the vulnerability is resolved by checking the version number
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,504.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-45662 — 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-2024-45662 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