CVE-2015-9240
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 · uneditedDue to a bug in the the default sign in functionality in the keystone node module before 0.3.16, incomplete email addresses could be matched. A correct password is still required to complete sign in.
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 confidenceThe keystone Node.js module before version 0.3.16 contains a flawed email validation regex in its default sign-in functionality. This flaw allows incomplete email addresses (e.g., partial domains) to match valid user accounts, enabling authentication attempts against any account where a prefix of the email address is known.
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< 0.3.16CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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.
-
Check installed Keystone versionRun 'npm list keystone' in your project directory or inspect the version field in your package.json fileAffected if The installed version is lower than 0.3.16
-
Confirm default sign-in is in useReview your authentication implementation to determine if you are using Keystone's default sign-in via keystone.Auth or keystone.signin, rather than a custom authentication methodAffected if Your application uses Keystone's default sign-in functionality with email/password authentication
-
Test email validation behaviorAttempt a sign-in using a partial email address such as 'user@' or 'user@partial' where the prefix matches a valid account in your user databaseAffected if The partial email address successfully triggers an authentication attempt against a valid account or returns different behavior than a completely invalid email format
-
Review authentication logsExamine your Keystone application's authentication logs or console output for login attempts using incomplete email addressesAffected if Logs show authentication attempts using partial email addresses that should have been rejected as invalid formats
You are affected if your Keystone installation is version 0.3.16 or lower AND your application relies on the default sign-in functionality, allowing partial email addresses to trigger authentication attempts against valid accounts.
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 data0.3.16
Upgrade the keystone module to version 0.3.16 or later to obtain the corrected email validation logic. Additionally, review authentication logs for any suspicious login attempts using partial email addresses.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $1,376.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-9240 — 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-2015-9240 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