CVE-2007-1951
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 · uneditedSession fixation vulnerability in onelook obo Shop allows remote attackers to hijack web sessions by setting a PHPSESSID cookie.
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 confidenceSession fixation vulnerability in onelook obo Shop allows remote attackers to hijack web sessions by setting a PHPSESSID cookie. The attacker can pre-set a known session ID before user authentication, then reuse that same session ID after the victim logs in to gain unauthorized access to the authenticated session.
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 dataall versionsCVSS 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.
-
Identify Onelook Oboshop installationLocate the application files and check for oboshop, onelook, or shop-related PHP files in the web root or application directoryAffected if The application is Onelook Oboshop and uses PHP sessions
-
Verify PHP session usageSearch the codebase for session_start() calls and examine how PHPSESSID cookies are handled. Look for cookie handling in login/authentication scriptsAffected if The application uses PHPSESSID cookies for session management
-
Check for client-supplied session ID acceptanceExamine PHP code that handles session initialization. Look for code that accepts session IDs from GET/POST/cookie parameters without validation. Search for patterns like 'session_id()' being called with user inputAffected if The application accepts and uses session IDs provided by clients without server-side validation
-
Inspect session handling during authenticationReview login/authentication code paths to determine if session_regenerate_id() is called after successful authentication. Check if the old session is destroyed with session_destroy()Affected if Session IDs are NOT regenerated after successful login; old session IDs remain valid
-
Verify session invalidation on logoutCheck logout functionality to see if sessions are properly destroyed or if session data persists that could be reusedAffected if Sessions are not invalidated, allowing session reuse
If Onelook Oboshop is running and accepts client-supplied PHPSESSID without regenerating the session ID after authentication, the environment is vulnerable to session fixation.
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 dataRegenerate session IDs upon successful authentication using session_regenerate_id() and destroy the old session. Additionally, validate session IDs server-side and reject any client-provided session IDs or implement proper session handling that prevents fixation.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2007-1951 — 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-2007-1951 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