CVE-2024-47104
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 i 7.4 and 7.5 is vulnerable to an authenticated user gaining elevated privilege to a physical file. A user with authority to a view can alter the based-on physical file security attributes without having object management rights to the physical file. A malicious actor can use the elevated privileges to perform actions restricted by their view privileges.
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 confidenceIBM i 7.4 and 7.5 contains an privilege escalation vulnerability where an authenticated user with only view-level authority can modify security attributes of the underlying physical file that the view is based on, without requiring object management rights to that physical file.
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= 7.4= 7.5CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 i versionRun command: DSPDTAARA LIB(QSYS) DTAARA(QSS1MRI) - or check system value QRYSYSNAME to verify the operating system version is 7.4 or 7.5Affected if Version is 7.4 or 7.5
-
Identify SQL views in the environmentQuery system catalog: SELECT VIEW_SCHEMA, VIEW_NAME, BASE_TABLE_SCHEMA, BASE_TABLE_NAME FROM QSYS2.SYSVIEWS WHERE VIEW_TYPE = 'VIEW'Affected if SQL views exist in the library list that reference physical files as their base
-
Check view authority vs physical file authorityFor each view, verify user authority: DSPOBJAUT OBJ(LIB/VIEW) OBJTYPE(*FILE) shows view-level authority; DSPOBJAUT OBJ(LIB/PHYSFILE) OBJTYPE(*FILE) shows physical file authority - user should have *USE or *READ on view but lack *OBJMGT on physical fileAffected if Users have at least view-level authority (*USE/*READ) but lack object management authority (*OBJMGT) on the underlying physical file
-
Audit view-to-physical file relationshipsRun: SELECT V.VIEW_NAME, V.BASE_TABLE_NAME, O.OBJAUT from QSYS2.SYSVIEWS V JOIN TABLE (DSPOBJAUT output for each physical file) on the base table - identify any where a user can access view but cannot manage the physical fileAffected if Any view exists where authorized users can modify security attributes of the underlying physical file without having object management rights to that file
User is affected if running IBM i 7.4 or 7.5 and has SQL views where users with view-level access lack object management authority on the underlying physical files.
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 IBM i PTFs for this vulnerability (contact IBM support for availability) and audit existing view-to-physical file relationships to identify exposed objects.
- Consultation12.0 h
- Implementation20.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $14,784.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-47104 — 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-2024-47104 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