CVE-2012-4592
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 Portal in McAfee Enterprise Mobility Manager (EMM) before 10.0 does not set the secure flag for the ASP.NET session cookie in an https session, which makes it easier for remote attackers to capture this cookie by intercepting its transmission within an http session.
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 confidenceMcAfee Enterprise Mobility Manager (EMM) Portal before version 10.0 does not set the secure flag on the ASP.NET session cookie. This allows the session cookie to be transmitted over unencrypted HTTP connections, enabling remote attackers to intercept the cookie through network sniffing or man-in-the-middle attacks.
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<= 9.6= 4.7CVSS 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.
-
Verify EMM Portal versionLocate the installed McAfee Enterprise Mobility Manager Portal and check its version number. This is typically found in the application itself (about page), installation files, or registry entries under the EMM installation directory.Affected if The installed version is 9.6 or lower, or specifically version 4.7.
-
Confirm HTTP access is enabledDetermine whether the EMM Portal is accessible over HTTP (port 80 or similar) rather than exclusively over HTTPS. Check the web server configuration or try accessing the portal via HTTP.Affected if The portal is accessible over unencrypted HTTP connections.
-
Inspect session cookie for secure flagLog into the EMM Portal over HTTP and use browser developer tools or a network capture tool to inspect the ASP.NET session cookie (typically named ASP.NET_SessionId). Check whether the 'Secure' attribute is present in the Set-Cookie header.Affected if The session cookie is transmitted without the Secure flag set.
-
Review ASP.NET cookie configurationExamine the web.config or machine.config files in the EMM Portal installation for the sessionState configuration. Look for the 'cookieRequireSSL' attribute or similar security settings.Affected if The configuration does not require SSL for cookies (cookieRequireSSL is false or missing).
A user is affected if they are running EMM Portal version 9.6 or lower (or version 4.7) and the application transmits session cookies over HTTP without the Secure flag enabled.
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 ASP.NET application to set the 'secure' flag on the session cookie, ensuring it is only transmitted over HTTPS connections.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-4592 — 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-2012-4592 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