ForumsApplication · Allaire

CVE-2002-0108

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v2.0 Published 2002-03-25
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
Allaire Forums 2.0.4 and 2.0.5 and Forums! 3.0 and 3.1 allows remote authenticated users to spoof messages as other users by modifying the hidden form fields for the name and e-mail address.

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 confidence

Allaire Forums stores user identity (name and email) in hidden form fields that are submitted with messages. Authenticated users can modify these hidden fields to impersonate other users when posting messages, due to insufficient server-side validation of the submitted user identity data.

MitigationImplement server-side user validation by using session-based user identification instead of trusting hidden form fields. The application should retrieve the authenticated user's identity from the server session rather than accepting it from client-submitted forms.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.

NVD · CPE data
ForumsApplication
Affected:= 2.0.4= 2.0.5= 3.0= 3.1

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
Authentication
None
Confidentiality
Partial
Integrity
Partial
Availability
Partial

AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Confirm Allaire Forums installation
    Locate and identify the Allaire Forums installation on the server. Check for forums executable files, configuration files, or the application binary.
    Affected if The installed version matches 2.0.4, 2.0.5, 3.0, or 3.1
  2. Identify installed version
    Check the application's version information through the admin interface, readme files, or metadata files included with the installation.
    Affected if The version is one of the following: 2.0.4, 2.0.5, 3.0, or 3.1
  3. Examine post message forms
    Access the message posting functionality and view the HTML source of the form used to submit new messages or replies. Look for hidden input fields containing user identity data such as username, display name, or email address.
    Affected if Hidden form fields containing user identity (name, email, or user identifier) are present in the posting form
  4. Verify server-side user validation
    Review the server-side code that processes message submissions. Check if the application retrieves the authenticated user's identity from server-side session data or if it accepts user identity values submitted from the client-side form.
    Affected if The application accepts user identity from client-submitted form data without verifying it matches the authenticated session user

You are affected if Allaire Forums version 2.0.4, 2.0.5, 3.0, or 3.1 is installed and the application uses hidden form fields to传递用户身份信息 without server-side validation against the authenticated session.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement server-side user validation by using session-based user identification instead of trusting hidden form fields. The application should retrieve the authenticated user's identity from the server session rather than accepting it from client-submitted forms.

Fix this in Forums Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
9.0 hours of engineering $1,600
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2002-0108 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2002-0108 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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