CVE-2024-46892
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 · uneditedA vulnerability has been identified in SINEC INS (All versions < V1.0 SP2 Update 3). The affected application does not properly invalidate sessions when the associated user is deleted or disabled or their permissions are modified. This could allow an authenticated attacker to continue performing malicious actions even after their user account has been disabled.
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 confidenceThis is a session management vulnerability in SINEC INS where the application fails to invalidate active user sessions when the user's account state changes. When a user is deleted, disabled, or experiences permission modifications, existing session tokens remain valid and active. This allows a previously authenticated attacker to continue performing actions even after their account has been disabled or deleted, bypassing access controls that should have taken effect.
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< 1.0= 1.0CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 installed SINEC INS versionLocate the SINEC INS installation and check the version information, typically found in the application about page, installation directory, or system information panel. Compare this version against the affected range: versions < 1.0 or exactly 1.0.Affected if The installed version is < 1.0 or equals 1.0
-
Confirm session-based authentication is activeVerify that SINEC INS is configured to use session-based user authentication. Check the authentication settings or security configuration within the SINEC INS web interface or configuration files.Affected if Session-based authentication is enabled and users can log in to the application
-
Test session persistence after account modificationCreate a test user, establish an active authenticated session, then delete or disable that user account within SINEC INS. Attempt to use the previously obtained session token to access the application.Affected if The old session token remains valid and allows access after the user account has been deleted or disabled
-
Verify session invalidation on permission changesWith an authenticated session active, modify the test user's role or permissions. Continue using the same session token and attempt to perform actions that should require the new permission level or verify if old permissions still apply.Affected if Actions requiring removed permissions are still accessible with the existing session after permission changes
A user is affected if the installed SINEC INS version is 1.0 or earlier and the application fails to invalidate active sessions when user accounts are deleted, disabled, or have their permissions modified.
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.
dbcve · scoped1.0
Implement proper session invalidation logic that terminates all active sessions when a user is deleted, disabled, or when their permissions are modified. Update to version V1.0 SP2 Update 3 or later when available.
V1.0 SP2 Update 3 or later
- 1. Identify the current installed version of SINEC INS
- 2. If the installed version is prior to V1.0 SP2 Update 3, plan for upgrade
- 3. Back up the current SINEC INS configuration and data
- 4. Obtain the V1.0 SP2 Update 3 (or later) installation package from official Siemens channels
- 5. Perform the upgrade following Siemens documentation
- 6. After upgrade, verify that sessions are properly invalidated when users are deleted, disabled, or have permission changes
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 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 $7,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-46892 — 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-2024-46892 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