CVE-2006-7201
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 does not set the secure qualifier on the SiteKey Flash token (aka the PassMark Flash shared object), which might allow remote attackers to obtain the token via HTTP.
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 confidenceThe EMC RSA Security SiteKey (PassMark Flash shared object) does not set the 'secure' qualifier on its authentication token, meaning the token can be transmitted over insecure HTTP connections rather than being restricted to HTTPS only.
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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/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.
-
Verify RSA Security SiteKey deploymentSearch for SiteKey-related files on the system, including any Flash (.swf) shared object files named 'PassMark' or 'SiteKey', or check browser plugins/extensions for RSA SiteKey presenceAffected if SiteKey Flash shared object is present on the system or deployed in the environment
-
Identify authentication token configurationLocate the SiteKey configuration files or examine the authentication flow documentation to find where the token cookie or parameter is definedAffected if An authentication token is configured without the 'Secure' flag attribute
-
Check connection protocol for authenticationCapture network traffic or review server logs during the authentication process to determine if the SiteKey token is transmitted over HTTP (port 80) instead of HTTPS (port 443)Affected if The token is sent or can be sent over unencrypted HTTP rather than being restricted to HTTPS only
-
Inspect cookie or token attributesExamine the SiteKey authentication token cookie or session parameter in browser developer tools or HTTP headers to check for the presence of the 'Secure' attributeAffected if The token lacks the 'Secure' qualifier and can be transmitted over insecure connections
If RSA Security SiteKey is deployed and its authentication token does not enforce the 'Secure' flag, the environment is affected by this vulnerability.
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 the SiteKey Flash token to include the 'Secure' flag, ensuring it is only transmitted over encrypted HTTPS connections.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2006-7201 — 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-2006-7201 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