CVE-2016-9344
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 Moxa MiiNePort E1 versions prior to 1.8, E2 versions prior to 1.4, and E3 versions prior to 1.1. An attacker may be able to brute force an active session cookie to be able to download configuration files.
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 confidenceThe Moxa MiiNePort E1/E2/E3 devices contain a session fixation vulnerability where an active session cookie can be brute forced, allowing an unauthenticated attacker to download device configuration files containing sensitive information.
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<= 1.7<= 1.3<= 1.0CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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 MiiNePort device modelAccess the device web interface or check the device label/serial number to confirm whether it is an E1, E2, or E3 variant.Affected if The device is a Moxa MiiNePort E1, E2, or E3 model.
-
Determine the installed firmware versionLog into the device web interface and navigate to the System Settings or Firmware Information page to view the current firmware version.Affected if The firmware version is <= 1.7 for E1, <= 1.3 for E2, or <= 1.0 for E3.
-
Verify web management interface accessibilityAttempt to access the device HTTP/HTTPS web interface from the network. Confirm the login page is reachable.Affected if The web management interface is exposed on the network.
-
Check for predictable session cookiesObserve the session cookie value upon logging into the web interface. Note whether the cookie value appears static or predictable across multiple sessions.Affected if The session cookie does not change or appears easily guessable between authentication attempts.
-
Test configuration file download accessibilityAttempt to access the device configuration export or backup function without authentication, or observe if configuration files are stored in a predictable URL path.Affected if Configuration files containing sensitive information (passwords, network settings) can be accessed or downloaded without valid authentication.
You are affected if you have a MiiNePort E1 (firmware <= 1.7), E2 (<= 1.3), or E3 (<= 1.0) with the web interface accessible, as the session fixation flaw allows brute-forcing session cookies to access sensitive configuration files.
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 dataUpdate firmware to E1 v1.8, E2 v1.4, or E3 v1.1 or later. Additionally, implement network segmentation and rate limiting on authentication endpoints to reduce brute force attack surface.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $2,832.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-9344 — 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-2016-9344 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