CVE-2016-4890
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 · uneditedZOHO ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus before 9.2 uses an insecure method for generating cookies, which makes it easier for attackers to obtain sensitive password information by leveraging access to a cookie.
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 confidenceManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus before version 9.2 uses an insecure method for generating authentication cookies, which allows attackers with access to a cookie to potentially recover or manipulate sensitive password information. The weak cookie generation algorithm enables prediction or decryption of session credentials.
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<= 9.1CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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 the installed ServiceDesk Plus versionLog into the ServiceDesk Plus admin interface and navigate to the About or Administration > General section to view the product version. Alternatively, check the installation directory for a version file or the startup script logs that typically display the version on service start.Affected if The displayed version number is 9.1 or lower (for example, 9.1, 9.0, 8.x, or earlier)
-
Confirm the version from command line if availableIf you have shell access to the server, run the version check command for your operating system. On Windows, this may be listed in the service properties or in the \bin\version.txt file within the installation folder. On Linux, check /opt/servicedesk plus/bin/ or similar installation paths for version information.Affected if The command output or version file shows a build number corresponding to version 9.1 or earlier
-
Verify the cookie generation mechanismThis vulnerability stems from a weak cookie generation algorithm in versions before 9.2. Since the insecure method has been replaced in version 9.2, the presence of the weak algorithm can be inferred by confirming the version is <= 9.1. There is no separate config flag to check.Affected if The installed version is confirmed to be 9.1 or any version below 9.2, meaning the insecure cookie generation method is in use
A user is affected if their ServiceDesk Plus installation is version 9.1 or any earlier version, as these contain the insecure cookie generation algorithm that allows prediction or decryption of authentication credentials.
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 ServiceDesk Plus to version 9.2 or later, which implements a secure cookie generation method. Review existing user sessions and consider password resets for affected accounts as a precaution.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-4890 — 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-2016-4890 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