CVE-2011-1673
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 · uneditedBackupConfig.php on the NetGear ProSafe WNAP210 allows remote attackers to obtain the administrator password by reading the configuration file.
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 BackupConfig.php script on NetGear ProSafe WNAP210 access points contains an information disclosure vulnerability allowing remote attackers to directly read the configuration file, which exposes the plaintext administrator password.
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 versions= 2.0.12CVSS 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.
-
Confirm the device is a Netgear WNAP210 access pointCheck the device label, web interface login page, or SNMP sysDescr for 'WNAP210' or 'ProSafe' identifiersAffected if The device is a Netgear ProSafe WNAP210 access point
-
Verify BackupConfig.php is accessibleAttempt an HTTP GET request to http://[device-ip]/BackupConfig.php from an authorized network locationAffected if The script responds with HTTP 200 and returns configuration data without authentication
-
Check if plaintext administrator credentials are exposedExamine the response body from BackupConfig.php for plaintext username/password pairs, specifically looking for admin credential patternsAffected if The configuration dump contains readable plaintext administrator passwords
-
Confirm firmware version is within scopeCheck the web interface System > Status or similar page for the firmware version, or retrieve via SNMP if availableAffected if The firmware is version 2.0.12 or any version (all WNAP210 versions are affected per CVE)
If the device is a Netgear WNAP210 and the BackupConfig.php script is accessible without authentication and returns plaintext credentials, the environment is affected by CVE-2011-1673.
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 dataSince this is a legacy 2011 device likely beyond vendor support, implement network segmentation to restrict management interface access, or replace with a supported device. If the device must remain in service, disable remote administration and enforce VPN access for any management needs.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-1673 — 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-2011-1673 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