CVE-2011-1509
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 encryptPassword function in Login.js in ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus (SDP) 8012 and earlier uses a Caesar cipher for encryption of passwords in cookies, which makes it easier for remote attackers to obtain sensitive information by sniffing the network.
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 confidenceManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus versions 8012 and earlier use a trivially breakable Caesar cipher in the encryptPassword function within Login.js to protect passwords stored in cookies. This weak encryption allows attackers who can sniff network traffic to easily decrypt and obtain user credentials.
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<= 8012= 8.0CVSS 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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check ServiceDesk Plus versionDetermine the installed version of ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus and compare it to the affected range (versions 8012 and earlier, specifically version 8.0)Affected if The installed version is 8012 or earlier, or version 8.0
-
Inspect Login.js for weak encryptionLocate the Login.js file in the ServiceDesk Plus installation directory. Examine the encryptPassword function and verify if it uses a Caesar cipher for password encryption in cookiesAffected if The encryptPassword function in Login.js uses a Caesar cipher to encrypt passwords stored in cookies
-
Verify cookie-based authenticationLog into ServiceDesk Plus and examine cookies created during authentication. Check if passwords or credentials are stored in cookiesAffected if User passwords are stored in cookies using the weak Caesar cipher encryption
The environment is affected if ServiceDesk Plus version 8012 or earlier is running and Login.js uses a Caesar cipher to encrypt passwords stored in 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 Caesar cipher with a strong cryptographic algorithm (e.g., AES-256) for password encryption in cookies. Ensure proper key management and validate that existing cookie-based authentication continues to function after the change.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-1509 — 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-2011-1509 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