CVE-2004-2243
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 · uneditedPhorum allows remote attackers to hijack sessions of other users by stealing and replaying the session hash in the phorum_uriauth parameter, as demonstrated using profile.php. NOTE: the affected version was reported to be 4.3.7, but this may be erroneous.
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 · moderate confidencePhorum contains a session hijacking vulnerability where attackers can steal session hashes from the phorum_uriauth parameter and replay them to impersonate other users. The flaw is demonstrated in profile.php, allowing remote attackers to hijack user sessions and gain unauthorized access to accounts.
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= 4.3.7CVSS 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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Confirm Phorum installationLocate Phorum by searching for core files like index.php, common.php, or a directory named 'phorum' in your web root.Affected if Phorum is not present on the system, the vulnerability does not apply.
-
Identify Phorum versionCheck the installed Phorum version by looking at version.php, a VERSION file, or within the administrative interface under system information.Affected if The installed version is 4.3.7, indicating the specific affected version.
-
Locate profile.phpFind the profile.php file within the Phorum installation directory, typically in the root or a scripts subdirectory.Affected if profile.php is absent, the demonstrated attack vector does not exist.
-
Inspect session parameter handlingExamine the source code of profile.php and related session handling files for usage of the phorum_uriauth parameter without proper validation or regeneration.Affected if Code accepts and uses session hashes from the phorum_uriauth parameter without cryptographic validation or rotation.
-
Verify session security controlsReview session management code for mechanisms such as IP binding, token rotation, or cryptographically random session ID generation.Affected if No session validation mechanisms exist, leaving sessions vulnerable to replay attacks.
Your environment is affected if Phorum 4.3.7 is installed and the profile.php file processes phorum_uriauth parameters without cryptographic session validation or replay protection.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
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 dataImplement proper session token generation with cryptographically random values, add session validation mechanisms (such as IP binding or token rotation), and ensure sessions are invalidated after use to prevent replay attacks.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2004-2243 — 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 sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2004-2243 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
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.
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.
- 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