CVE-2017-14013
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 · uneditedA Client-Side Enforcement of Server-Side Security issue was discovered in ProMinent MultiFLEX M10a Controller web interface. The log out function in the application removes the user's session only on the client side. This may allow an attacker to bypass protection mechanisms, gain privileges, or assume the identity of an authenticated 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 · high confidenceThe ProMinent MultiFLEX M10a Controller web interface has a session validation flaw where the logout function only destroys the session client-side (clearing cookies/localStorage) without invalidating the session token on the server. This leaves valid session IDs active server-side after apparent logout, allowing session hijacking or privilege escalation.
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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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 device modelAccess the web interface or check the device label/documentation to confirm it is a ProMinent MultiFLEX M10a Controller. The web interface typically listens on port 80/443.Affected if The device is a ProMinent MultiFLEX M10a Controller with web interface enabled
-
Verify firmware versionCheck the firmware version through the web interface system status page or device documentation. All firmware versions are affected.Affected if Any firmware version of the ProMinent MultiFLEX M10a Controller is installed
-
Test session invalidation behaviorLog into the web interface, capture the session cookie/token, perform logout, then attempt to use the original session token to access the web interface. Inspect whether the server accepts the old session token after logout.Affected if The server accepts the same session ID after logout (session remains valid server-side)
-
Check for session timeoutAfter logging out, wait and attempt to replay the session cookie to see if it remains valid without re-authentication.Affected if Old session tokens remain valid indefinitely or beyond a reasonable timeout period
If the device is a ProMinent MultiFLEX M10a Controller with web interface enabled, the environment is affected because all versions have this session validation flaw where logout does not invalidate sessions server-side.
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 server-side session invalidation in the logout function to destroy the session both client and server-side, and consider implementing session timeout mechanisms.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,848.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-14013 — 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-2017-14013 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