CVE-2024-49797
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 ApplinX 11.1 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.
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 ApplinX 11.1 fails to properly enable HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), which protects against protocol downgrade attacks and cookie hijacking. Without HSTS headers properly configured, an attacker performing man-in-the-middle attacks can intercept sensitive information transmitted between users and the application.
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= 11.1.0CVSS 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
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.
-
Verify HSTS header is present in HTTP responsesSend an HTTP request to the IBM ApplinX web interface (for example, using curl -I https://<hostname>/) and inspect the response headers for the Strict-Transport-Security headerAffected if The Strict-Transport-Security header is missing from the HTTP response
-
Confirm HSTS max-age directive is configuredExamine the Strict-Transport-Security header value to ensure it includes a max-age directive with a positive valueAffected if The max-age directive is missing or set to zero
-
Verify includeSubDomains directive is setCheck if the Strict-Transport-Security header contains the includeSubDomains directiveAffected if The includeSubDomains directive is absent from the HSTS header
-
Check reverse proxies for HSTS header handlingInspect any reverse proxies, load balancers, or application gateways in front of IBM ApplinX to verify they are not stripping or overriding HSTS headersAffected if An intermediary is removing or modifying the HSTS header before it reaches the client
The environment is affected if the Strict-Transport-Security header is missing, lacks a valid max-age, or is being stripped by intermediaries in the request path.
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 dataEnable and properly configure HSTS headers (including max-age, includeSubDomains directive, and consider preload) on the IBM ApplinX web server and any reverse proxies/load balancers in the path.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-49797 — 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-2024-49797 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