CVE-2016-6545
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 · uneditedSession cookies are not used for maintaining valid sessions in iTrack Easy. The user's password is passed as a POST parameter over HTTPS using a base64 encoded passwd field on every request. In this implementation, sessions can only be terminated when the user changes the associated password.
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 confidenceiTrack Easy lacks proper session management - instead of using session cookies, the application transmits a base64-encoded password (the 'passwd' field) with every HTTP request. Since base64 is encoding (not encryption), passwords are trivially reversible. Sessions can only be terminated by changing the user's password, leaving no ability to invalidate active sessions.
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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.
-
Confirm Itrackeasy installationIdentify if the deployed web application is Ieasytec Itrackeasy by checking the application name, banner, or URL patterns used by the productAffected if The application is Itrackeasy from Ieasytec
-
Inspect HTTP requests for password transmissionCapture or review HTTP requests sent to the application (using browser dev tools, proxy, or network logs) and look for a 'passwd' parameter being sent with each requestAffected if A 'passwd' field is included in HTTP requests instead of session cookies
-
Verify base64 encoding of passwordExamine the value of the 'passwd' parameter in captured requests - decode it using base64 to confirm it contains the actual password in plaintextAffected if The 'passwd' value decodes to readable password text, indicating base64 encoding rather than encryption
-
Check for session cookie usageReview HTTP responses and subsequent requests to determine if the application issues and uses session cookies for authentication stateAffected if No session cookie is set and the application relies solely on the base64-encoded password in each request
-
Test for logout functionalityLook for a logout button, endpoint, or session termination option within the application interface and APIAffected if No logout option exists and sessions can only be terminated by changing the user's password
A user is affected if they are running Itrackeasy and the application transmits base64-encoded passwords with each HTTP request instead of using session cookies with proper logout capability.
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 dataReplace the password-in-every-request pattern with proper session cookie-based authentication using server-side session management, and implement explicit session termination (logout) functionality.
- Consultation12.0 h
- Implementation48.0 h
- Testing20.0 h
- Review / QA12.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $25,920.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-6545 — 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-2016-6545 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