CVE-2026-4967
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 · uneditedIn IMS, there is a possible out of bounds read due to a missing bounds check. This could lead to remote denial of service with no additional execution privileges needed.
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 confidenceIn IBM IMS (Information Management System), an out of bounds read vulnerability exists due to a missing bounds check in the IMS component. An attacker can trigger this vulnerability by sending specially crafted requests to the IMS system, causing the system to read memory outside the intended buffer boundaries. This leads to a denial of service condition without requiring any elevated privileges.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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.
-
Confirm IBM IMS installationRun command to list installed IBM IMS components or check system inventory for 'IBM IMS' or 'Information Management System' productsAffected if IBM IMS is not installed on the system, the vulnerability does not apply
-
Identify installed IBM IMS versionUse IBM utility commands such as 'dfhupgt' or check IMS libraries/version banners to determine the exact version and release level of IBM IMSAffected if Unable to determine version or version falls within any affected range (compare against IBM security bulletins)
-
Verify network exposure of IMS servicesCheck network configuration, firewall rules, or listening ports to determine if IMS transaction processing ports are accessible from untrusted networksAffected if IMS services are exposed to untrusted network segments, allowing external attackers to send malicious requests
-
Review IMS transaction logs for anomaliesExamine IMS message logs (DFHLOG, DFHMLOG, or system console output) for unexpected memory read errors, abends, or unusual transaction failuresAffected if Logs show recurring transaction failures, memory-related abends, or unexpected behavior consistent with out of bounds read events
A system is affected if IBM IMS is installed, its version is within the affected range, and the IMS transaction interfaces are network-accessible to potential 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.
From vendor dataApply vendor-supplied patches for IBM IMS when available. Until a patch is released, implement compensating controls such as network segmentation and input validation at perimeter systems to reduce attack surface.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation10.0 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 $7,872.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-4967 — 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-2026-4967 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