CVE-2015-2849
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 · uneditedSQL injection vulnerability in main.ant in the ANTlabs InnGate firmware on IG 3100, InnGate 3.01 E, InnGate 3.10 E, InnGate 3.10 M, SG 4, and SSG 4 devices, when https is used, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the ppli parameter.
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 confidenceSQL injection vulnerability in the main.ant web application component of ANTlabs InnGate wireless gateway firmware. The ppli parameter in the HTTPS interface fails to properly sanitize user input, allowing remote attackers to inject and execute arbitrary SQL commands against the backend database.
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 versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsCVSS 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
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
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 device modelAccess the device administrative interface or check device documentation/labels to confirm the exact model name and version (e.g., Inngate Ig 3.01 E, Inngate Ig 3.10 E, Inngate Ig 3.10 M, Inngate Ig 3100, Inngate Sg 4, or Inngate Ssg 4)Affected if The device model matches any of the affected products listed in the CVE (Inngate Ig series or Inngate Sg/Ssg 4 series)
-
Verify firmware versionCheck the device firmware version through the web management interface, command line interface, or device status pageAffected if The device is any of the affected models regardless of firmware version (all versions are vulnerable)
-
Confirm HTTPS web interface availabilityAttempt to access the main.ant page via HTTPS (e.g., https://<device_ip>/main.ant) in a web browser or using curl to verify the interface is reachableAffected if The HTTPS web interface is accessible on the network
-
Check for ppli parameter exposureReview HTTP/HTTPS requests to the main.ant endpoint and identify if a 'ppli' parameter is used in the interface (this parameter accepts user input and is where the SQL injection occurs)Affected if The ppli parameter exists in the main.ant interface and accepts user-supplied input without sanitization
If the device is any model in the ANTlabs InnGate Ig or Sg/SSg 4 series with the HTTPS web interface accessible, the environment is affected by this 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 dataUpdate affected devices to vendor-supplied patched firmware if available; otherwise, restrict network access to the management interface via firewall rules and deploy WAF signatures to block SQL injection attempts in the ppli parameter.
- 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-2015-2849 — 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-2015-2849 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