The client in Tryton 5.x before 5.0.1 tries to make a connection to the bus in cleartext instead of encrypted under certain circumstances in
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 23/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 1% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 64.2% of all records.
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. No account or password is required. No user action is required. Special conditions such as timing or configuration are required.
- Fixed version: tryton (PyPI) 5.0.1.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to tryton (PyPI) 5.0.1 or later.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
The client in Tryton 5.x before 5.0.1 tries to make a connection to the bus in cleartext instead of encrypted under certain circumstances in bus.py and jsonrpc.py. This connection attempt fails, but it contains in the header the current session of the user. This session could then be stolen by a man-in-the-middle.
- Published
- Nov 22, 2018
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 1.0% · 64th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-384
Report tools
Action score
23
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 23 / 40 · 5.9 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 1.0%
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- A fix has been released
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| tryton | tryton | cpe:2.3:a:tryton:tryton |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- tryton tryton5.0.0
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| PyPI | tryton | from 5.0.0 · before 5.0.1 | 5.0.1 |
Same product
tryton: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2014-6633The safe_eval function in trytond in Tryton before 2.4.15, 2.6.x before 2.6.14, 2.8.x before 2.8.11, 3.0.x before 3.0.7, and 3.2.x before 3.36Monitor
- CVE-2013-4510Directory traversal vulnerability in the client in Tryton 3.0.0, as distributed before 20131104 and earlier, allows remote servers to write 32Monitor
- CVE-2017-0360file_open in Tryton 3.x and 4.x through 4.2.2 allows remote authenticated users with certain permissions to read arbitrary files via a "same21Monitor
- CVE-2016-1241Tryton 3.x before 3.2.17, 3.4.x before 3.4.14, 3.6.x before 3.6.12, 3.8.x before 3.8.8, and 4.x before 4.0.4 allow remote authenticated user21Monitor
- CVE-2020-37014Tryton 5.4 - Persistent Cross-Site Scripting20Monitor
- CVE-2016-1242file_open in Tryton before 3.2.17, 3.4.x before 3.4.14, 3.6.x before 3.6.12, 3.8.x before 3.8.8, and 4.x before 4.0.4 allows remote authenti18Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| PyPI:tryton | 5.0.1 | Package registry (OSV) |
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- No account or password is required.
- No user action is required.
- Special conditions such as timing or configuration are required.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- none
- Availability
- none
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- High
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- None
- Availability impact
- None
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-384 · Session FixationCVSS vector
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
nvd-primary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Session Credential Falsification through ForgingCAPEC-196likelihood: Medium · Medium
- Exploitation of Trusted IdentifiersCAPEC-21likelihood: High · High
- Accessing/Intercepting/Modifying HTTP CookiesCAPEC-31likelihood: High · High
- Manipulating Opaque Client-based Data TokensCAPEC-39likelihood: High · Medium
- Session Credential Falsification through PredictionCAPEC-59likelihood: High · High
- Reusing Session IDs (aka Session Replay)CAPEC-60likelihood: High · High
- Session FixationCAPEC-61likelihood: Medium · High
ATT&CK techniques
- Access Token ManipulationT1134
- Access Token Manipulation:Token Impersonation/TheftT1134.001
- Access Token Manipulation: Create Process with TokenT1134.002
- Access Token Manipulation: Make and Impersonate TokenT1134.003
- Steal Application Access TokenT1528
- Steal Web Session CookieT1539
- Use Alternate Authentication Material:Web Session CookieT1550.004
- Forge Web CredentialsT1606
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Show all references (1 more)Show less
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.