CVE-2017-1271 in Security Guardium
Summary
by MITRE
IBM Security Guardium 9.0, 9.1, and 9.5 supports interaction between multiple actors and allows those actors to negotiate which algorithm should be used as a protection mechanism such as encryption or authentication, but it does not select the strongest algorithm that is available to both parties. IBM X-Force ID: 124746.
If you want to get best quality of vulnerability data, you may have to visit VulDB.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 01/26/2021
IBM Security Guardium versions 9.0, 9.1, and 9.5 contain a cryptographic vulnerability that stems from improper algorithm negotiation mechanisms within the system's multi-actor interaction framework. This weakness exists in the protocol handling layer where multiple security actors communicate and establish protection mechanisms through cryptographic algorithms. The vulnerability manifests when these actors engage in algorithm selection processes without enforcing a minimum security threshold that ensures both parties agree upon the strongest available algorithm. This design flaw creates a downgrade attack surface where less secure cryptographic mechanisms can be selected during the negotiation phase, potentially compromising the confidentiality and integrity of protected data. The issue aligns with CWE-327, which addresses the use of weak cryptographic algorithms, and represents a failure in cryptographic protocol implementation that violates fundamental security principles.
The technical implementation of this vulnerability occurs during the cryptographic handshake process where Guardium's security actors negotiate encryption and authentication protocols. When multiple actors participate in this negotiation, the system fails to implement a robust algorithm strength validation mechanism that would require both parties to select the highest security level available to both. This allows for the possibility of selecting weaker algorithms such as those with insufficient key lengths or deprecated cryptographic methods that have known vulnerabilities. The vulnerability is particularly concerning because it operates at the protocol level where security decisions are made, making it difficult to detect through standard network monitoring or application-level checks. The system's failure to enforce cryptographic strength requirements creates an environment where adversaries can potentially force the use of weakened cryptographic mechanisms through various attack vectors including man-in-the-middle scenarios or protocol manipulation.
The operational impact of this vulnerability extends beyond simple cryptographic weakness to encompass broader security implications for organizations relying on IBM Security Guardium for data protection. When weaker algorithms are selected during the negotiation process, sensitive data passing through the system may be exposed to decryption attacks, authentication bypass attempts, or other cryptographic attacks that exploit the reduced security level. This vulnerability affects the system's ability to maintain strong cryptographic protection for database security, network monitoring, and compliance requirements that organizations depend upon. The potential for data exposure increases significantly when considering that Guardium is typically deployed in environments where it protects critical business data, personal information, and regulated datasets that require strong cryptographic protection according to industry standards such as pci dss, hipaa, and soc 2 requirements. Organizations may unknowingly compromise their security posture through this vulnerability, potentially leading to compliance violations, data breaches, and regulatory penalties.
Mitigation strategies for this vulnerability should focus on implementing proper cryptographic protocol enforcement and algorithm strength validation within the Guardium system. Organizations should consider upgrading to patched versions of IBM Security Guardium that address the algorithm negotiation weakness, ensuring that the system enforces the use of the strongest available cryptographic algorithms during actor negotiations. System administrators should also implement network segmentation and monitoring to detect potential downgrade attacks targeting the cryptographic handshake process. The implementation of cryptographic strength requirements that mandate minimum key lengths and algorithm standards should be enforced at the protocol level to prevent the selection of weak cryptographic mechanisms. Additionally, regular security assessments should be conducted to verify that the cryptographic negotiation process is functioning correctly and that no weak algorithms are being selected during system operations. This vulnerability demonstrates the critical importance of proper cryptographic protocol design and the necessity of implementing robust algorithm selection mechanisms that prioritize security over compatibility in security-critical systems.