C Cure 9000 FirmwareOperating system · Johnsoncontrols

CVE-2021-36201

MEDIUM · 5.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2022-10-11
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to after 2.90 or later.
See remediation →
62/100
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
Under certain circumstances a CCURE Portal user could enumerate user accounts in CCURE 9000 version 2.90 and prior versions.

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

This is an information disclosure vulnerability in CCURE 9000 version 2.90 and prior where the CCURE Portal reveals whether user accounts exist in the system, allowing attackers to enumerate valid usernames. This is typically accomplished through differences in error messages, response codes, or timing between existing and non-existing usernames.

MitigationImplement uniform error responses and validation timing for login and account recovery functions to prevent username enumeration; consider rate limiting and account lockout policies.

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
C Cure 9000 FirmwareOperating system
Affected:<= 2.90

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
Low
Integrity
None
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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 installed CCURE 9000 firmware version
    Access the system admin panel or check the firmware/version information in the CCURE 9000 management console. The version is typically displayed in the About or System Info section of the portal.
    Affected if The installed version is 2.90 or any version prior to 2.90.
  2. Test login page with non-existent username
    Navigate to the CCURE Portal login page and attempt to authenticate with a username that clearly does not exist in the system. Note the exact error message or response presented.
    Affected if The error message differs from the message shown when attempting to log in with a valid username (for example, 'Invalid username' versus 'Invalid password').
  3. Test login page with valid username
    Attempt to log in using a known valid username with an incorrect password. Compare the exact wording of any error messages or HTTP response codes to those observed with a non-existent username.
    Affected if The system returns a different error message, response code, or behavior for valid usernames versus non-existent usernames, indicating username disclosure.
  4. Test account recovery or forgot password feature
    Use the password recovery or account lookup function and submit both valid and invalid usernames. Observe whether the system provides different responses based on account existence.
    Affected if The system reveals whether an account exists through different error messages, 'user not found' versus 'instructions sent', or any other distinguishing behavior.
  5. Check for timing differences in authentication responses
    Submit multiple login or password reset requests for both existing and non-existing usernames while measuring response times using a tool or script. Compare average response times between the two scenarios.
    Affected if Response times are significantly different between existing and non-existing usernames, allowing enumeration through timing analysis.

A defender is affected if the installed CCURE 9000 version is 2.90 or prior AND the system exhibits different responses (error messages, codes, or timing) that reveal whether specific usernames exist in the portal.

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 2.90
Interim mitigation

Implement uniform error responses and validation timing for login and account recovery functions to prevent username enumeration; consider rate limiting and account lockout policies.

Fix this in C Cure 9000 Firmware Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
10.0 hours of engineering $1,750
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-36201 — 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-2021-36201 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