CVE-2025-36134
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 Sterling B2B Integrator and IBM Sterling File Gateway 6.0.0.0 through 6.1.2.7 and 6.2.0.0 through 6.2.0.5 and 6.2.1.1 could disclose sensitive information due to a missing or insecure SameSite attribute for a sensitive cookie.
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 Sterling B2B Integrator and Sterling File Gateway versions 6.0.0.0-6.1.2.7, 6.2.0.0-6.2.0.5, and 6.2.1.1 contain a sensitive cookie missing a secure SameSite attribute, allowing cross-site transmission that could expose session or authentication data.
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>= 6.0.0.0, < 6.1.2.7_2>= 6.2.0.0, < 6.2.0.5_1= 6.2.1.1>= 6.0.0.0, < 6.1.2.7_2>= 6.2.0.0, < 6.2.0.5_1= 6.2.1.1CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/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.
-
Identify installed IBM Sterling B2B Integrator versionLocate the version information in the installation directory, typically found in a version file, about page, or admin console of the productAffected if the version falls within 6.0.0.0-6.1.2.7, 6.2.0.0-6.2.0.5, or equals 6.2.1.1
-
Identify installed IBM Sterling File Gateway versionLocate the version information in the installation directory, typically found in a version file, about page, or admin console of the productAffected if the version falls within 6.0.0.0-6.1.2.7, 6.2.0.0-6.2.0.5, or equals 6.2.1.1
-
Inspect Set-Cookie response headers for SameSite attributeUse browser developer tools (Network tab), a proxy tool, or curl to capture HTTP responses from the product and examine Set-Cookie headers for the SameSite attribute on sensitive cookies such as session or authentication cookiesAffected if the SameSite attribute is missing or not set on sensitive cookies (session, authentication, or similar cookies)
-
Verify cookie security configuration in application serverCheck the application server configuration files (such as web.xml,ibm-web-ext.xml, or similar) for cookie settings and look for SameSite attribute definitionsAffected if SameSite attribute is not configured for sensitive cookies in the server configuration
A user is affected if they run any version of IBM Sterling B2B Integrator or Sterling File Gateway within the listed affected ranges AND their sensitive cookies are missing the SameSite attribute in HTTP responses.
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 · scoped6.1.2.7_26.2.0.5_1
Configure the affected sensitive cookie(s) with SameSite=Strict or SameSite=Lax (or SameSite=None with Secure flag) in the application server or web server configuration, then verify with browser developer tools.
6.1.2.7_2 (for 6.1.x branch) or 6.2.0.5_1 (for 6.2.0.x branch) or subsequent release for 6.2.1.1
- 1. Identify the currently installed version of IBM Sterling B2B Integrator or Sterling File Gateway by checking the system administration console or version information.
- 2. For versions 6.0.0.0 through 6.1.2.7: Plan an upgrade to version 6.1.2.7_2 or later in the 6.1.x release line.
- 3. For versions 6.2.0.0 through 6.2.0.5: Plan an upgrade to version 6.2.0.5_1 or later in the 6.2.0.x release line.
- 4. For version 6.2.1.1: Plan an upgrade to the next available patch set (version higher than 6.2.1.1) that includes the security fix.
- 5. Before upgrading, review IBM's upgrade documentation and ensure backup procedures are in place.
- 6. Perform the upgrade following IBM's standard upgrade procedures for Sterling B2B Integrator or Sterling File Gateway.
- 7. After upgrade, verify the SameSite attribute is properly set on sensitive cookies by inspecting HTTP response headers.
- 8. Test critical business workflows to ensure the upgrade did not disrupt functionality.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-36134 — 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-2025-36134 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