HeinekingmediaApplication · Stashcat

CVE-2017-11131

MEDIUM · 5.9 CVSS v3.0 Published 2017-08-01
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to after 1.7.5 or later.
See remediation →
68/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
An issue was discovered in heinekingmedia StashCat through 1.7.5 for Android, through 0.0.80w for Web, and through 0.0.86 for Desktop. For authentication, the user password is hashed directly with SHA-512 without a salt or another key-derivation mechanism to enable a secure secret for authentication. Moreover, only the first 32 bytes of the hash are used. This allows for easy dictionary and rainbow-table attacks if an attacker has access to the password hash.

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 confidence

StashCat uses insecure password hashing by applying SHA-512 directly to the user password without any salt, then truncating to only the first 32 bytes. This enables trivial dictionary and rainbow-table attacks if an attacker obtains the password hashes.

MitigationReplace the SHA-512 hashing with a proper key-derivation function (bcrypt, scrypt, or Argon2) that includes unique per-password salts and appropriate work factors to resist brute-force attacks.

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
HeinekingmediaApplication
Affected:<= 1.7.5<= 0.0.80w<= 0.0.86w

CVSS 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
High
Privileges
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify StashCat installation and version
    Locate the StashCat application and determine the installed version number (typically found in application metadata, about page, or version file). Compare against affected versions: <= 1.7.5, <= 0.0.80w, or <= 0.0.86w.
    Affected if Installed version falls within any of the affected version ranges.
  2. Examine password hash storage format
    Access the database or user storage where password hashes are stored. Inspect the format of stored password hashes - the vulnerability produces SHA-512 hashes truncated to 32 bytes (64 hexadecimal characters).
    Affected if Stored password hashes appear as 64-character hexadecimal strings consistent with SHA-512 truncated output, with no salt component visible.
  3. Verify absence of salt in hashing configuration
    Review application configuration files and authentication module settings to check whether a salt parameter or pepper value is defined for password hashing. Look for any salt-related configuration options.
    Affected if No salt configuration is found or the hashing implementation does not include a unique per-password salt value.
  4. Inspect authentication code for hashing implementation
    Examine the source code or decompiled application binaries for the password hashing routine. Search for SHA-512 hash function calls and verify whether salt is combined with the password before hashing.
    Affected if The code uses SHA-512 directly on the password without incorporating any salt value, or truncates the hash output to 32 bytes.

A user is affected if the installed StashCat version is within the affected ranges AND the password storage shows 64-character SHA-512 hashes with no salt, or code inspection confirms SHA-512 is applied without salting.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Upgrade available Upgrade to a release after 1.7.5
Interim mitigation

Replace the SHA-512 hashing with a proper key-derivation function (bcrypt, scrypt, or Argon2) that includes unique per-password salts and appropriate work factors to resist brute-force attacks.

Fix this in Heinekingmedia Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation16.0 h
  • Testing8.0 h
  • Review / QA4.0 h
32.0 hours of engineering $5,600
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,960.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-11131 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2017-11131 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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