LuciApplication · Redhat
CVE-2010-3852
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 · uneditedThe default configuration of Luci 0.22.4 and earlier in Red Hat Conga uses "[INSERT SECRET HERE]" as its secret key for cookies, which makes it easier for remote attackers to bypass repoze.who authentication via a forged ticket cookie.
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 default Luci web interface configuration uses a hardcoded placeholder secret key '[INSERT SECRET HERE' for signing repoze.who authentication cookies, allowing remote attackers to forge valid session cookies and bypass authentication.
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
LuciApplication
<= 0.22.4CVSS 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
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check Luci version installedRun 'rpm -q luci' or 'rpm -q conga' to determine the installed package version, then compare to 0.22.4Affected if Version is 0.22.4 or lower
-
Locate Luci/Conga configuration filesSearch for configuration files in /etc/luci or /etc/conga directories, typically looking for files containing 'secret' or 'cookie' settingsAffected if Configuration files exist in these locations
-
Inspect cookie secret configurationOpen the Luci/Conga configuration file and look for the 'cookie_secret' or 'secret' settingAffected if The value is set to the literal placeholder '[INSERT SECRET HERE'
-
Verify active authentication cookiesIf you have access to running Luci, inspect active session cookie configuration to confirm which secret is being used for signingAffected if The active cookie signing uses the default placeholder value
You are affected if Luci or Conga version is 0.22.4 or lower AND the configuration still contains the default placeholder secret '[INSERT SECRET HERE' for signing authentication cookies.
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 dataReplace the default cookie secret key with a cryptographically strong random value in the Luci/Conga configuration and restart the service.
Fix this in Luci
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,744.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-3852 — 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-2010-3852 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