CVE-2021-38476
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 · uneditedInHand Networks IR615 Router's Versions 2.3.0.r4724 and 2.3.0.r4870 authentication process response indicates and validates the existence of a username. This may allow an attacker to enumerate different user accounts.
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 IR615 Router versions 2.3.0.r4724 and 2.3.0.r4870 have a user enumeration vulnerability in the authentication process. The system returns distinct responses that differ based on whether a provided username exists in the system, allowing attackers to systematically enumerate valid user accounts through repeated authentication 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= 2.3.0.r4724= 2.3.0.r4870CVSS 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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify IR615 router modelAccess the device web interface or check device label/documentation to confirm the model is Inhand Networks IR615Affected if Device is not an IR615 model - not affected by this specific CVE
-
Check firmware versionLog into the device web interface, typically at /admin or /status page, and locate the firmware version information. Alternatively, check via CLI if SSH/Telnet is enabled.Affected if Firmware version is 2.3.0.r4724 or 2.3.0.r4870 - potentially affected
-
Test authentication response with valid usernameAttempt login with a known-valid username but incorrect password. Note the exact error message returned.Affected if Response indicates specific error like 'user exists but password wrong' or similar username-specific feedback
-
Test authentication response with invalid usernameAttempt login with a completely fabricated username and any password. Note the exact error message returned.Affected if Response is different from step 3 - indicates user enumeration is possible
-
Compare authentication error messagesReview both error messages from steps 3 and 4. Check if one explicitly confirms username existence while the other says username does not exist.Affected if Messages differ in a way that reveals whether the username is valid - vulnerable to user enumeration
The device is affected if it is an IR615 with firmware 2.3.0.r4724 or 2.3.0.r4870 AND the authentication system returns different error messages for valid vs invalid usernames, allowing enumeration.
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 uniform authentication error responses that do not disclose whether a username exists (e.g., return the same 'invalid credentials' message for both invalid usernames and invalid passwords). Consider implementing account lockout policies to limit brute-force enumeration attempts.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-38476 — 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-2021-38476 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