Powerchute Network ShutdownApplication · Apc

CVE-2005-4326

MEDIUM · 5.0 CVSS v2.0 Published 2005-12-17
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
59/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
The web interface for American Power Conversion (APC) PowerChute Network Shutdown performs all communication in cleartext (base64-encoded), which allows remote attackers to sniff authentication credentials.

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 confidence

The APC PowerChute Network Shutdown web interface transmits all communication in base64-encoded format rather than using proper encryption. Base64 is encoding, not encryption, so authentication credentials can be easily decoded by anyone sniffing network traffic.

MitigationEnable TLS/SSL encryption for the web interface to protect credentials in transit. If the product version does not support TLS, consider upgrading to a supported version or using network segmentation to limit exposure.

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
Powerchute Network ShutdownApplication
Affected:all versions

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
Authentication
None
Confidentiality
Partial
Integrity
None
Availability
None

AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify web interface access protocol
    Check if the APC PowerChute web interface is accessible via HTTP (port 80) or HTTPS (port 443) by attempting to connect to both and observing the response
    Affected if The interface is accessible over HTTP without TLS encryption, indicating base64-encoded data is transmitted in cleartext
  2. Verify TLS/SSL configuration
    Access the PowerChute administrative interface and navigate to the network or security settings to confirm whether SSL/TLS encryption is enabled for the web server
    Affected if TLS/SSL encryption is disabled or not configured for the web interface
  3. Capture and inspect network traffic
    Use a network packet capture tool (such as Wireshark or tcpdump) to capture traffic between the client and the PowerChute web server during login. Extract the Authorization header from HTTP requests
    Affected if The captured Authorization header contains base64-encoded credentials (e.g., Basic base64string) rather than encrypted TLS tunnel traffic, meaning credentials can be decoded with a base64 decoder
  4. Check for SSL certificate presentation
    When connecting to the web interface with a browser, verify whether an SSL certificate is presented and whether the connection uses HTTPS with a valid TLS handshake
    Affected if No SSL certificate is presented and the connection does not establish TLS, confirming unencrypted (base64-only) communication

The environment is affected if the PowerChute web interface is accessed over HTTP without TLS/SSL enabled, allowing network sniffers to decode base64-encoded authentication credentials.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Enable TLS/SSL encryption for the web interface to protect credentials in transit. If the product version does not support TLS, consider upgrading to a supported version or using network segmentation to limit exposure.

Fix this in Powerchute Network Shutdown Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation2.0 h
  • Testing1.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
6.0 hours of engineering $1,090
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,744.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2005-4326 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2005-4326 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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