CVE-2012-6494
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 · uneditedRapid7 Nexpose before 5.5.4 contains a session hijacking vulnerability which allows remote attackers to capture a user's session and gain unauthorized access.
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 · moderate confidenceRapid7 Nexpose before version 5.5.4 contains a session hijacking vulnerability that allows remote attackers to capture valid user sessions, enabling unauthorized access to the application with the privileges of the compromised session.
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< 5.5.4CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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.
-
Determine the installed Nexpose versionUse the nexpose-cli or nexpose-console tool with a version command, or check the product information in the web interface under Help > About. On Linux systems, you may also run 'nexposectl version' or check /opt/rapid7/nexpose/nsc/nsc-version.xml if installed in the default location.Affected if The displayed version number is less than 5.5.4 (for example, 5.5.0, 5.4.x, or earlier)
-
Verify the exact version numberConfirm the full version string including any patch numbers. Check the installation directory for version files, or run 'nexposectl -v' from the command line if available.Affected if The version shown is < 5.5.4 (such as 5.5.3, 5.5.2, 5.5.1, or any 5.x.x version below 5.5.4)
-
Confirm Nexpose is runningCheck if the Nexpose service is active by using system commands like 'service nexpose status' or checking the process list for nexpose-related processes.Affected if Nexpose is running and the version is below 5.5.4 - the session hijacking flaw only applies when the vulnerable software is active
If the installed Rapid7 Nexpose version is any release prior to 5.5.4, the environment is affected by this session hijacking 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 data5.5.4
Upgrade Rapid7 Nexpose to version 5.5.4 or later to obtain the session management security fixes.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-6494 — 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-2012-6494 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