CVE-2015-8989
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 · uneditedUnsalted password vulnerability in the Enterprise Manager (web portal) component in Intel Security McAfee Vulnerability Manager (MVM) 7.5.8 and earlier allows attackers to more easily decrypt user passwords via brute force attacks against the database.
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 Vulnerability Manager 7.5.8 and earlier stores user passwords without cryptographic salting in the Enterprise Manager database. Unsalted passwords allow attackers to use precomputed hash tables (rainbow tables) or more efficiently brute force password hashes, significantly reducing the time and computational effort needed to recover plaintext passwords.
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<= 7.5.8CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 McAfee Vulnerability Manager versionCheck the installed version of McAfee Vulnerability Manager through the product interface (Help > About) or by inspecting the installed binaries and registry entries for the version numberAffected if The installed version is 7.5.8 or earlier
-
Locate the Enterprise Manager databaseIdentify the database server (SQL Server or similar) used by McAfee Vulnerability Manager Enterprise Manager. Check product documentation or configuration files for database connection detailsAffected if The database server is accessible and contains the Enterprise Manager schema
-
Examine the user password storage schemaConnect to the Enterprise Manager database and inspect the user authentication table schema. Look for columns related to password storage (such as 'password', 'pwd', or similar). Check whether a 'salt' column or similar salt-related field exists in the user tableAffected if The user table lacks a salt column or equivalent mechanism for per-user salting
-
Verify password hash formatQuery a sample user record and examine the password hash format. Determine if the hash appears to be a single unsalted value or if it includes embedded salt or uses a salted formatAffected if Password hashes appear as single unsalted values (e.g., single MD5 or SHA hash strings without salt) rather than properly salted formats like bcrypt or salted hash concatenations
You are affected if McAfee Vulnerability Manager version is 7.5.8 or earlier AND the user password storage in the Enterprise Manager database lacks per-user salting in the schema.
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 dataImplement per-user salted password hashing (e.g., bcrypt, scrypt, or Argon2) for new and existing passwords. This requires updating the password storage schema, modifying authentication logic, and forcing password resets for all existing users to apply the new hashing scheme.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation24.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $14,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-8989 — 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-2015-8989 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