CVE-2015-0914
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 · uneditedEasyCTF before 1.4 does not validate the session ID, which allows remote attackers to obtain access via a crafted HTTP request.
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 confidenceEasyCTF before version 1.4 fails to validate session IDs in HTTP requests, allowing remote attackers to forge or hijack sessions and gain unauthorized access to the application. This is a classic session validation bypass vulnerability where the application accepts any presented session identifier without verifying its authenticity or ownership.
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<= 1.3CVSS 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.
-
Identify EasyCTF versionLocate the version identifier in the application (check version file, footer, admin panel, or application metadata). Compare against the affected range: versions 1.3 and earlier are vulnerable.Affected if The installed version is 1.3 or any version lower than 1.4.
-
Verify session authentication is in useAttempt to log into the application and examine whether a session cookie or session identifier is created and required for authenticated access.Affected if The application uses session-based authentication (session cookies/tokens).
-
Inspect session validation logicExamine the server-side code responsible for processing session IDs (look for session handling files, auth middleware, or session verification functions). Determine if the code verifies session ownership before accepting a session identifier.Affected if The application accepts and trusts session IDs without verifying they were legitimately issued to the requesting user.
-
Test session forgery vulnerabilityCreate a valid session, then modify or fabricate a different session ID in the request and observe whether the application accepts it as a valid authenticated session.Affected if The application accepts arbitrary/fabricated session IDs and grants access based solely on the presented session identifier.
A user is affected if running EasyCTF version 1.3 or earlier AND the application uses session-based authentication, AND the session validation logic accepts arbitrary session IDs without verifying their authenticity or ownership.
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 dataUpgrade to EasyCTF 1.4 or later, which implements proper session ID validation. If patching is not immediately possible, implement server-side session validation checks (verify session exists, is not expired, and is bound to the correct user/IP).
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-0914 — 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-2015-0914 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