CVE-2005-2185
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 · uneditedeRoom does not set an expiration for Cookies, which allows remote attackers to capture cookies and conduct replay attacks.
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 confidenceeRoom fails to set expiration attributes on session cookies, causing them to persist without a defined lifetime. Attackers can capture these cookies through network sniffing or malware and replay them to impersonate legitimate users, enabling unauthorized access to the application.
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= 6.0.1= 6.0.2= 6.0.3= 6.0.4= 6.0.5= 6.0.6= 6.0.7CVSS 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
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
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 eRoom versionCheck the installed eRoom version by inspecting the application binaries, About page, or version file. Common locations include the eRoom installation directory or the application's help/about section.Affected if Version is 6.0, 6.0.1, 6.0.2, 6.0.3, 6.0.4, 6.0.5, 6.0.6, or 6.0.7
-
Capture HTTP response headersLog in to eRoom and capture the HTTP response headers using browser developer tools (Network tab), a proxy like Fiddler, or tcpdump. Look for Set-Cookie headers in the authentication response.Affected if Set-Cookie headers for session cookies lack the Expires or Max-Age attribute, meaning the cookie persists as a session cookie with no defined expiration
-
Inspect cookie storageAfter authenticating to eRoom, open browser developer tools and examine the stored cookies for the eRoom domain. Check if the cookies show a session expiration or have a specific expiration timestamp.Affected if Cookies do not display an expiration date/time and remain stored indefinitely until manually cleared
-
Verify cookie behavior across sessionsLog in to eRoom, close the browser completely, then reopen the browser and navigate to eRoom without re-authenticating. Observe whether the previous session remains active.Affected if Previous session persists and user remains authenticated without providing credentials, indicating cookies lack proper expiration
If eRoom version is 6.0-6.0.7 AND authentication cookies lack Expires/Max-Age attributes and persist across browser restarts, the environment is affected by this CVE.
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 dataConfigure eRoom to set appropriate expiration values for all cookies, using session cookies (no expires attribute) for authenticated sessions or setting reasonable expiration times for persistent cookies.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 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-2005-2185 — 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-2005-2185 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