CVE-2007-2378
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 · uneditedThe Google Web Toolkit (GWT) framework exchanges data using JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) without an associated protection scheme, which allows remote attackers to obtain the data via a web page that retrieves the data through a URL in the SRC attribute of a SCRIPT element and captures the data using other JavaScript code, aka "JavaScript Hijacking."
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 confidenceGoogle Web Toolkit (GWT) exchanges data using JSON without protection against JavaScript hijacking. Attackers can exploit this by using a web page with a SCRIPT tag SRC attribute pointing to the JSON endpoint, allowing malicious JavaScript to capture and exfiltrate the returned data.
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
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
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 GWT deploymentSearch web application directories for GWT-specific files: *.nocache.js, gwt.js, or modules named *.gwt.xml. Check web.xml for GWT servlet mappings.Affected if GWT files or servlets are present in the application
-
Identify JSON data exchange endpointsReview application network traffic or source code for JSON responses. Look for content-type application/json or .json file extensions in API endpoints.Affected if The GWT application returns JSON data to clients
-
Check for anti-CSRF token implementation on JSON endpointsInspect JSON endpoint source code or HTTP responses. Verify that each JSON request/response includes and validates a unique anti-CSRF token. Test by making a cross-origin SCRIPT tag request to the JSON endpoint and observing if it returns data without a valid token.Affected if JSON endpoints lack anti-CSRF token validation and accept requests from script tags
-
Check for Origin/Referer header validationAnalyze JSON endpoint server-side code or proxy configuration. Verify the server rejects requests with missing or unexpected Origin/Referer headers for cross-site requests.Affected if JSON endpoints do not validate Origin/Referer headers and allow cross-origin access via SCRIPT tags
Your environment is affected if you use Google Web Toolkit to serve JSON data AND your JSON endpoints lack both anti-CSRF tokens and Origin/Referer header validation.
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 anti-CSRF tokens for all JSON endpoints and validate the Origin/Referer headers. Consider migrating to more secure data exchange formats or implementing JSON with custom parsing that cannot be executed as JavaScript.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $10,240.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2007-2378 — 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-2007-2378 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