Every applicability statement published about this vulnerability, kept as each source wrote it rather than merged into one verdict. Where sources disagree, both positions are shown.
A statement that names no version covers the whole product, which is not the same as your version falling inside a range. Orderings marked best effort come from schemes with no published comparison algorithm; exact ones follow a published specification.
Precedence decides which claim wins when two sources describe the same product over the same version range. It is a property of the source, not of the claim, and changing it re-ranks the data without re-reading a single document.
| Product | Status | Versions | Remediation | Source | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ivanti/EPM Ivanti · EPM | affected | >= 2024 September Security Update, < 2024 September Security Update | none available | cve_cna | |
| Ivanti/EPM Ivanti · EPM | affected | >= 2022 SU6, < 2022 SU6 | none available | cve_cna | |
| ivanti/endpoint_manager ivanti · endpoint_manager | not affected | < 2022_su6 | not applicable | cve_adp | |
| ivanti/endpoint_manager ivanti · endpoint_manager | not affected | >= 2024, < 2024_september_security_update | not applicable | cve_adp |
A claim with no version range is shown as written rather than expanded: a government catalog naming only a vendor and product is a real statement at zero granularity, and inventing bounds for it would put precision in the record that the source never offered.