CVE-2023-41089
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 an improper authentication vulnerability, which may allow an attacker to impersonate a legitimate user as long as the device keeps the session active, since the attack takes advantage of the cookie header to generate "legitimate" requests.
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 confidenceThis is an improper authentication vulnerability where an attacker can impersonate legitimate users by exploiting the cookie header to generate 'legitimate' requests as long as the session remains active. The vulnerability appears to involve session fixation or hijacking, where the authentication mechanism relies too heavily on cookies without sufficient validation or session lifecycle controls.
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= 20130114CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify installed Dexgate versionLocate the Dexgate application and retrieve its version number from the application UI, installation directory, or by querying the software directly (e.g., via about page, version endpoint, or package metadata)Affected if The installed version is exactly 20130114
-
Verify cookie-based authentication is activeLog into Dexgate and inspect the authentication flow; check if the application uses HTTP cookies to maintain sessions after loginAffected if Cookies are used for session management and the version is 20130114
-
Examine session cookie flagsUsing browser developer tools or a proxy, capture a session cookie after authentication and inspect its attributes; check for HttpOnly, Secure, and SameSite flagsAffected if HttpOnly, Secure, or SameSite attributes are missing or set to permissive values (e.g., SameSite=None) while the version is 20130114
-
Test session ID regeneration behaviorLog in, note the session cookie value, log out, then log back in; compare the session ID before and after re-authentication to see if a new ID is generatedAffected if Session ID remains unchanged after logout/login cycle (no regeneration) and version is 20130114
A user is affected if Dexgate version 20130114 is installed and uses cookie-based authentication with missing or weak session security controls.
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 proper session management including session ID regeneration on authentication, secure cookie flags (HttpOnly, Secure, SameSite), session expiration, and server-side session validation to prevent session hijacking/fixation attacks.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-41089 — 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-2023-41089 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