AmegaviewApplication · Mesalabs

CVE-2021-27451

CRITICAL · 9.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2021-12-21
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to after 3.0 or later.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
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
Mesa Labs AmegaView Versions 3.0 and prior’s passcode is generated by an easily reversible algorithm, which may allow an attacker to gain access to the device.

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 confidence

Mesa Labs AmegaView Versions 3.0 and prior uses a weak, reversible algorithm to generate device passcodes. An attacker who discovers the algorithm can calculate valid passcodes and gain unauthorized administrative access to the device.

MitigationUpgrade to a version beyond 3.0 that implements proper cryptographic passcode generation. If no update is available, isolate the device on a restricted network segment and monitor for unauthorized access attempts.

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
AmegaviewApplication
Affected:<= 3.0

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

CVSS:3.1/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 checks

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

  1. Confirm AmegaView installation
    Identify if the Mesa Labs AmegaView software or device is present in your environment. Check for the AmegaView application or associated device on your network.
    Affected if The product AmegaView is present in the environment
  2. Determine installed version
    Locate the installed AmegaView version information. This is typically found in the application itself (Help > About), the device system information, or documentation. Compare the version number to the affected range.
    Affected if The installed version is 3.0 or lower
  3. Review user accounts for unauthorized administrative access
    Access the AmegaView administrative interface and review the list of user accounts with administrative privileges. Look for unexpected or unknown admin accounts that may indicate unauthorized access.
    Affected if Unknown or unexpected administrative user accounts exist in the system
  4. Audit authentication logs for suspicious activity
    Review AmegaView authentication and access logs for signs of unauthorized administrative logins, especially from unfamiliar IP addresses or at unusual times.
    Affected if Authentication logs show administrative access from unrecognized sources or at unexpected times
  5. Inspect network traffic for credential exposure
    Monitor network traffic to and from the AmegaView device for plaintext passcode transmission or patterns consistent with the weak reversible algorithm being exploited.
    Affected if Network captures reveal passcodes transmitted in a reversible or predictable format

The environment is affected if AmegaView version 3.0 or prior is installed, and the weak reversible passcode algorithm has not been addressed through vendor update or compensating controls.

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 3.0
Interim mitigation

Upgrade to a version beyond 3.0 that implements proper cryptographic passcode generation. If no update is available, isolate the device on a restricted network segment and monitor for unauthorized access attempts.

Fix this in Amegaview Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation6.0 h
  • Implementation20.0 h
  • Testing10.0 h
  • Review / QA5.0 h
41.0 hours of engineering $7,200
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $11,520.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-27451 — 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-2021-27451 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