Fact check: Do the vulnerabilities in session create a big enough risk to stop using it entirely? How severe are the vulnerabilities?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, session vulnerabilities present significant and severe security risks that organizations must take seriously. The evidence shows multiple critical vulnerabilities with maximum severity ratings:

• Apache Roller vulnerability (CVE-2025-24859) received a CVSS score of 10.0 - the maximum possible severity rating - due to insufficient session expiration that allowed continued access even after password changes ^{[1] [2]}
• Microsoft addressed 67 security flaws in June 2025, including a zero-day WebDAV vulnerability that was actively exploited in the wild ^[3]
• Session hijacking attacks can bypass multi-factor authentication (MFA) and allow attackers to access sensitive information, with millions of valid sessions being stolen and sold weekly ^[4]

The threat landscape shows that session tokens have become "the new currency for cybercriminals" ^[4], with sophisticated attack methods like Browser-in-the-Middle (BitM) attacks capable of stealing session tokens in seconds and being difficult to detect ^[5]. These attacks are particularly damaging in ransomware campaigns and can be executed through infostealers that harvest session cookies ^[6].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several critical pieces of context that would inform a complete risk assessment:

• Specific implementation details - The severity of session vulnerabilities varies dramatically based on the specific technology stack, session management implementation, and security controls in place
• Risk mitigation strategies - The analyses reveal that vulnerabilities can be addressed through proper patching (Apache Roller was fixed in version 6.1.5), extension control, token hardening, and behavioral monitoring ^{[2] [5]}
• Business continuity considerations - Completely stopping session use would likely render most web applications non-functional, making risk mitigation rather than complete avoidance the practical approach
• Comparative risk analysis - No comparison is provided against alternative authentication methods or the risks of not using sessions at all

Organizations that provide cybersecurity solutions and consulting services would benefit from emphasizing the severity of these vulnerabilities, as it drives demand for their security products and services. Conversely, software vendors and cloud service providers might downplay risks to maintain user confidence in their platforms.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains an implicit bias by framing the issue as a binary choice between using sessions or "stopping entirely." This false dichotomy ignores the reality that:

• Modern web applications fundamentally require session management for basic functionality
• The real question should focus on proper implementation and security controls rather than complete avoidance
• Risk can be managed through proper security practices rather than eliminated through non-use

The question also lacks specificity about which type of sessions or vulnerabilities are being discussed, potentially leading to overgeneralization of risks across different technologies and implementations. The framing suggests an all-or-nothing approach that doesn't reflect how cybersecurity professionals actually assess and manage risks in practice.