CVE-2006-7200
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 · uneditedEMC RSA Security SiteKey issues challenge-bypass tokens that persist forever without a cancellation interface for end users, which makes it easier for attackers to bypass one stage of authentication by stealing and replaying a token.
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 · moderate confidenceEMC RSA Security SiteKey authentication system stores challenge-bypass tokens indefinitely without any user-accessible cancellation or revocation mechanism. Attackers who intercept these persistent tokens can replay them to bypass one stage of the multi-factor authentication flow, effectively downgrading the security of the authentication challenge.
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 dataall versionsCVSS 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
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:C/I:C/A:C
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 RSA SiteKey deploymentReview authentication infrastructure documentation, check installed security software packages, or query directory services for SiteKey configuration entries. Look for RSA authentication server components or SiteKey service processes running on authentication infrastructure.Affected if RSA SiteKey authentication system is deployed in the environment and handling multi-factor authentication flows.
-
Check token expiration policyExamine SiteKey configuration files or administrative console settings for token lifetime, expiration, or validity period settings. Look for parameters controlling how long challenge-bypass tokens remain active.Affected if No token expiration policy is configured, or tokens are configured to never expire.
-
Verify token revocation mechanism existsReview SiteKey administrative interface and user-facing authentication settings for any token revocation, cancellation, or token management features available to end users.Affected if There is no user-accessible mechanism to revoke or cancel stored challenge-bypass tokens.
-
Inspect token storage backendExamine the database or token store used by SiteKey for persistent challenge-bypass tokens. Check for any timestamp or expiration date fields associated with stored authentication tokens.Affected if Tokens are stored indefinitely without any temporal bounds or cleanup mechanism.
A user is affected if RSA SiteKey is deployed and the system stores challenge-bypass tokens indefinitely without user-accessible revocation capability, allowing replay attacks to bypass one authentication stage.
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 dataEngage with RSA/EMC to obtain patches for SiteKey that implement token expiration and user-accessible token revocation; meanwhile, implement network-level monitoring for token replay attacks and consider additional authentication layers as compensating controls.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,968.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2006-7200 — 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-2006-7200 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