CVE-2016-10224
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in Sauter NovaWeb web HMI. The application uses a protection mechanism that relies on the existence or values of a cookie, but it does not properly ensure that the cookie is valid for the associated user.
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 confidenceSauter NovaWeb web HMI has a cookie-based authentication bypass vulnerability. The application makes access control decisions based on cookie existence or values without properly validating that the cookie is legitimate and belongs to the requesting user, allowing unauthorized access to protected functionality.
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 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
- Privileges
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/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 if Sauter Novaweb Web HMI is presentCheck your installed applications, services, or web servers for 'Sauter Novaweb' or 'Novaweb Web HMI'. Review software inventory or running services on relevant systems.Affected if The product is found in your environment
-
Determine the deployment contextIdentify any systems running the Sauter Novaweb web interface. This may be a dedicated HMI server, a SCADA system, or a web service on port 80/443. Check network scans or service listings.Affected if Sauter Novaweb web interface is accessible on your network
-
Verify cookie-based authentication is in useAccess the Novaweb login page via browser or HTTP client, then examine HTTP responses for Set-Cookie headers. Capture and inspect cookies sent during authentication attempts.Affected if The application sets authentication cookies without proper server-side validation mechanisms
-
Test for cookie validation weaknessSend HTTP requests with manipulated or missing cookie values to protected pages/endpoints. Observe if access is granted without proper credentials based on cookie presence alone.Affected if Requests with modified, missing, or forged cookies successfully access protected functionality
If Sauter Novaweb Web HMI is deployed in your environment and the application grants access based solely on cookie presence without cryptographic validation, you are 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 dataImplement proper server-side cookie validation using cryptographically signed session tokens, enforce session expiration, and add secondary authentication checks for sensitive operations.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing10.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $9,504.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-10224 — 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-2016-10224 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