CVE-2021-42699
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 · uneditedThe affected product is vulnerable to cookie information being transmitted as cleartext over HTTP. An attacker can capture network traffic, obtain the user’s cookie and take over the account.
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 application transmits session cookies in cleartext over HTTP instead of using HTTPS/TLS encryption. An attacker performing network traffic capture (e.g., man-in-the-middle attack) can intercept these unencrypted cookies and use them to authenticate as the victim, achieving session hijacking.
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<= 18.1= 18.1CVSS 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:3.1/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify Daqfactory installation and versionCheck the Windows Start Menu or Program Files directory for 'Azeotech Daqfactory' and note the installed version (typically found in the application or its documentation)Affected if The installed version is 18.1 or any version <= 18.1 (verify against the affected range: <= 18.1 or = 18.1)
-
Determine if HTTP server is enabledCheck if Daqfactory's built-in web server is running and accessible over HTTP (port 80 or similar). Use a browser or network tool to attempt an HTTP connection to the Daqfactory serverAffected if The application server responds over HTTP (unencrypted) on port 80 or a non-TLS port, indicating cookies traverse the network unencrypted
-
Inspect cookie transmission over HTTPUse browser developer tools (Network tab) or a packet capture tool (like Wireshark) to capture traffic when authenticating to Daqfactory over HTTP. Examine the Set-Cookie headers or cookie transmission in requestsAffected if Session cookies (session ID or similar) are sent in cleartext over the unencrypted HTTP connection without TLS encryption
-
Verify cookie Secure flag configurationExamine the server configuration or cookie headers to check if the 'Secure' attribute is set on session cookies. This flag forces cookies to only be sent over HTTPSAffected if Session cookies lack the Secure flag and are transmitted over HTTP, allowing interception by an attacker on the same network
A user is affected if Daqfactory version 18.1 or lower is installed, the application server communicates over unencrypted HTTP, and session cookies lack the Secure flag, making them susceptible to interception and session hijacking.
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 dataEnable HTTPS on the server and configure session cookies with the Secure flag to ensure they are only transmitted over encrypted connections. Consider also setting the HttpOnly and SameSite flags for additional protection.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-42699 — 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-2021-42699 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