VulnerabilityPublished 17 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-1264: IBM Sterling B2B Integrator · Missing Authentication

Affects IBM Sterling B2B IntegratorSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.1High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 7% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: High
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 17 Mar 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 30 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
IBMSterling B2B Integrator	Affected >=6.1.0.0 <=6.1.2.7_2 >=6.2.0.0 <=6.2.0.5_1 >=6.2.1.0 <=6.2.1.1_1 =6.2.2.0	Fixed in–

CPE configurations (7)

cpe:2.3:a:ibm:sterling_b2b_integrator:6.1.0.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
cpe:2.3:a:ibm:sterling_b2b_integrator:6.1.2.7_2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
cpe:2.3:a:ibm:sterling_b2b_integrator:6.2.0.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
cpe:2.3:a:ibm:sterling_b2b_integrator:6.2.0.5_1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
cpe:2.3:a:ibm:sterling_b2b_integrator:6.2.1.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
cpe:2.3:a:ibm:sterling_b2b_integrator:6.2.1.1_1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*

AI-suggested

Immediately restrict network access to IBM Sterling B2B Integrator and Sterling File Gateway management interfaces to trusted IP addresses and VPNs to reduce exposure.
Implement strict access controls and audit logging to monitor all operations related to community and partner management.
Enforce the principle of least privilege by reviewing and minimizing user privileges, especially those with rights to manage communities and partners.
Apply any available vendor patches or updates as soon as they are released.
If patches are not yet available, consider deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) or Intrusion Prevention Systems (IPS) with custom rules to detect and block unauthorized requests targeting partner/community management functions.
Conduct thorough security reviews and penetration tests focusing on authentication mechanisms within the affected applications.
Educate administrators and users about the risks of unauthorized access and encourage strong credential management practices.
Maintain regular backups of configuration data to enable rapid recovery in case of unauthorized deletions.

Description

IBM Sterling B2B Integrator and IBM Sterling File Gateway 6.1.0.0 through 6.1.2.7_2, 6.2.0.0 through 6.2.0.5_1, 6.2.1.0 through 6.2.1.1_1, and 6.2.2.0 allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to view and delete the partners of a community and to delete the communities.

Impact

The vulnerability allows unauthorized users with limited privileges to manipulate critical B2B partner configurations by viewing and deleting partners and communities. This can lead to significant operational disruption, including loss of business partner connectivity, interruption of automated business transactions, and potential data integrity issues. The integrity of partner relationships and transaction workflows is at high risk, potentially causing financial losses and reputational damage. Since the vulnerability does not impact availability directly, denial of service is less likely, but the deletion of communities and partners can indirectly cause service interruptions. Organizations relying on IBM Sterling B2B Integrator for critical supply chain, logistics, or financial transactions are particularly vulnerable. The ability to perform these actions remotely without proper authentication increases the attack surface and risk of insider threats or compromised accounts being leveraged for further damage.

CWE-306Missing Authentication for Critical Functionality (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #21OWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.
Architecture and Design
Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Identify which of these areas require a proven user identity, and use a centralized authentication capability.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Architecture and Design
Where possible, avoid implementing custom, "grow-your-own" authentication routines and consider using authentication capabilities as provided by the surrounding framework, operating system, or environment.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Choosing Message Identifier (opens in a new tab)
Force the System to Reset Values (opens in a new tab)
Using Unpublished Interfaces or Functionality (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
Communication Channel Manipulation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

ibm.com/support/pages/node/7266518 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

CPE configurations (7)

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 18 Mar 2026, 18:16 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-306

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats