CVE-2007-1952
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 onebyone CMS 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 · moderate confidenceThis is a session fixation vulnerability in onelook onebyone CMS where remote attackers can hijack web sessions by pre-setting the PHPSESSID cookie before victim authentication. The attacker sets a known session ID, then after the victim logs in using that same session ID, the attacker can impersonate the victim by using the fixed session ID.
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 the Onelook Onebyone CMS installationCheck the source code for Onebyone CMS identifiers such as comments, author tags, or copyright notices in PHP files. Look for the presence of typical Onebyone CMS file structures or directory layouts.Affected if The application is confirmed to be Onelook Onebyone CMS
-
Verify PHP session configurationCheck the PHP configuration file (php.ini) or runtime settings for session.cookie_httponly and session.use_strict_mode settings. Also verify that session IDs are being handled through PHP native sessions.Affected if session.use_strict_mode is disabled and the application relies on client-supplied session IDs without validation
-
Examine authentication code for session ID regenerationLocate the login or authentication handler scripts in the CMS. Search for the presence of session_regenerate_id() function calls immediately after successful credential validation.Affected if The login processing code does not call session_regenerate_id() upon successful authentication
-
Test for session fixation vulnerabilityManually set a known PHPSESSID cookie value before authenticating. Complete a login with valid credentials while maintaining that fixed session ID. After login, verify whether the same PHPSESSID remains active and provides authenticated access.Affected if The original PHPSESSID value set before authentication remains valid and provides access after login completion
If the CMS is Onelook Onebyone and the login process does not regenerate the session ID, the environment is vulnerable to session fixation attacks.
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 delete the old session. Additionally, validate that session IDs are not being set from untrusted sources and configure proper session cookie attributes.
- 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-2007-1952 — 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-2007-1952 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