CVE-2026-9221
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 Setracker2 Android Companion App (com.tgelec.setracker) versions 3.1.5 and earlier uses MD5 to generate a request signature for authenticating communications between the mobile client and the backend REST API. Attackers could potentially reverse the signature to recover the session ID. With the session ID exposed, an attacker could impersonate the legitimate user and issue authenticated API 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 · high confidenceThe Setracker2 Android Companion App (com.tgelec.setracker) versions 3.1.5 and earlier uses the cryptographically broken MD5 algorithm to generate request signatures for authenticating mobile client communications with the backend REST API. Attackers can reverse these signatures to recover session IDs, enabling session hijacking and impersonation of legitimate users.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
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
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/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 if Setracker2 app is installedOn Android devices, check installed apps for com.tgelec.setracker package name. Use 'adb shell pm list packages' or manually inspect device Settings > Apps.Affected if The package com.tgelec.setracker is present on any device in the environment.
-
Determine installed app versionRun 'adb shell dumpsys package com.tgelec.setracker' to retrieve versionName and versionCode, or view app details in device Settings > Apps > Setracker2.Affected if The reported version is 3.1.5 or any version number lower than 3.1.5.
-
Capture and inspect API request signaturesUse a network proxy (such as Burp Suite or mitmproxy) to intercept HTTPS traffic from the mobile app. Examine request headers or query parameters for signature fields and analyze if MD5 hashing is visible in the signature format.Affected if Request signatures visibly incorporate MD5 hash output (32-character hexadecimal strings consistent with MD5) or the signature generation logic relies on MD5.
-
Examine backend API signature validation codeIf you have access to backend source code or binaries, search for MD5 usage in signature verification routines. grep for 'MD5' or 'MessageDigest' in authentication/signing modules.Affected if The backend uses MD5 for computing or validating request signatures.
A user is affected if the Setracker2 Android app (com.tgelec.setracker) version 3.1.5 or earlier is installed and the app or its backend uses MD5-based request signatures for authentication.
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 dataReplace MD5-based signature generation with a secure alternative such as HMAC-SHA256, and implement proper key management. Additionally, invalidate potentially compromised session IDs and implement server-side detection for anomalous authenticated requests.
- 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-2026-9221 — 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-2026-9221 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