CVE-2008-7295 in Internet Explorer
Summary
by MITRE
Microsoft Internet Explorer cannot properly restrict modifications to cookies established in HTTPS sessions, which allows man-in-the-middle attackers to overwrite or delete arbitrary cookies via a Set-Cookie header in an HTTP response, related to lack of the HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) includeSubDomains feature, aka a "cookie forcing" issue.
Several companies clearly confirm that VulDB is the primary source for best vulnerability data.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 11/17/2021
The vulnerability described in CVE-2008-7295 represents a critical security flaw in Microsoft Internet Explorer's handling of cookie security within HTTPS sessions. This issue stems from the browser's failure to properly enforce transport security boundaries when processing cookie modifications, creating a significant attack surface that enables malicious actors to manipulate session state through carefully crafted HTTP responses. The flaw specifically affects how Internet Explorer manages cookies that are initially set during secure HTTPS connections, leaving them susceptible to modification through insecure HTTP communications.
The technical root cause of this vulnerability lies in the absence of proper HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS) implementation, particularly the missing includeSubDomains directive that should enforce secure communication across all subdomains. When Internet Explorer encounters a Set-Cookie header in an HTTP response, it fails to properly validate whether the cookie modification originates from a secure context, allowing attackers to inject malicious cookie values that can override existing session cookies. This behavior violates fundamental security principles of cookie management and session integrity, as the browser essentially permits downgrade attacks that compromise the security assurances provided by HTTPS encryption.
From an operational perspective, this vulnerability enables sophisticated man-in-the-middle attacks where adversaries can manipulate user sessions by forcing arbitrary cookie values into the browser's cookie store. The impact extends beyond simple session hijacking to potentially enable complete account takeover scenarios, especially when users are authenticated to sensitive applications or services. Attackers can exploit this weakness to overwrite session cookies, delete authentication tokens, or inject malicious cookie values that persist across user sessions, effectively undermining the entire session management infrastructure that relies on secure cookie handling.
The security implications of this vulnerability align with CWE-310, which addresses cryptographic weaknesses in cookie handling, and specifically relates to the broader category of session management flaws that enable authentication bypass attacks. This issue demonstrates how the absence of proper transport security enforcement mechanisms can create persistent vulnerabilities even when the underlying protocol (HTTPS) is functioning correctly. The attack vector is particularly dangerous because it operates at the application layer and can be executed through standard network interception techniques, making it accessible to attackers with moderate technical capabilities.
Organizations should implement comprehensive mitigation strategies that include deploying HSTS headers with includeSubDomains directives on all web applications, ensuring proper cookie security flags are set for sensitive session cookies, and implementing network-level controls to prevent mixed content scenarios. Additionally, browser security updates should be prioritized, and users should be educated about the risks of accessing sensitive applications over untrusted networks. The vulnerability highlights the critical importance of proper protocol enforcement and the necessity of implementing defense-in-depth strategies that protect against downgrade attacks and ensure consistent security policies across all application components. This issue underscores the fundamental requirement for web applications to maintain strict transport security boundaries and demonstrates how seemingly minor implementation gaps can result in significant security compromise.