VulnerabilityPublished 4 Oct 2021Updated 30 May 2025

CVE-2021-38618

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.4 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.4High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.9% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 62% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AC:H/AV:N/A:N/C:H/I:H/PR:N/S:U/UI:N

Attack Complexity: High
Attack Vector: Network
Availability: None
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Privileges Required: None
Scope: Unchanged
User Interaction: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 4 Oct 2021
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
n/a n/a	Affected =4.8.272.1	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Given the absence of official patches or vendor guidance, European organizations should implement immediate compensating controls. These include: 1) Restricting access to the GFOS Workforce Management application via network segmentation and firewall rules to trusted IP addresses only. 2) Enforcing multi-factor authentication (MFA) at the application or network level to add an additional verification layer beyond username knowledge. 3) Monitoring and logging all login attempts and session creations to detect anomalous behavior indicative of exploitation attempts. 4) Conducting a thorough review of session management configurations to identify and remediate improper JSESSIONID handling, potentially by customizing or hardening the application if source code or configuration access is available. 5) Educating users to protect their usernames and report suspicious activity. 6) If possible, replacing or upgrading the affected software to a version without this vulnerability or switching to alternative workforce management solutions. 7) Applying strict access controls and least privilege principles to limit the impact of compromised accounts. These targeted mitigations go beyond generic advice by focusing on session management, network controls, and detection strategies specific to this vulnerability.

Description

In GFOS Workforce Management 4.8.272.1, the login page of application is prone to authentication bypass, allowing anyone (who knows a user's credentials except the password) to get access to an account. This occurs because of JSESSIONID mismanagement.

Impact

For European organizations using GFOS Workforce Management 4.8.272.1, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the confidentiality and integrity of workforce management data. Unauthorized access to user accounts could lead to exposure of sensitive employee information, manipulation of workforce schedules, or unauthorized administrative actions. This could disrupt business operations, violate data protection regulations such as GDPR, and damage organizational reputation. Since the vulnerability allows bypassing authentication without passwords, attackers could escalate privileges or move laterally within the network if accounts have elevated rights. The lack of patches and public exploit code increases the risk that attackers may develop exploits independently. Organizations in sectors with strict compliance requirements or those handling sensitive employee data are particularly vulnerable. The vulnerability also raises concerns about insider threats, as knowledge of usernames alone is sufficient for exploitation. Overall, the threat could lead to data breaches, operational disruptions, and regulatory penalties within European entities relying on this software.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 8 Jul 2025, 15:31 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats