CVE-2008-0560
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 · uneditedPHP remote file inclusion vulnerability in cforms-css.php in Oliver Seidel cforms (contactforms), a Wordpress plugin, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via a URL in the tm parameter. NOTE: CVE disputes this issue for 7.3, since there is no tm parameter, and the code exits with a fatal error due to a call to an undefined function
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 confidenceRemote file inclusion vulnerability in the cforms WordPress plugin's cforms-css.php allows attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via the tm parameter. The vulnerable code includes external files based on user input without proper sanitization. Note that version 7.3 reportedly does not have this vulnerability as the tm parameter was removed.
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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/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.
-
Check if cforms plugin is installedLocate the cforms plugin directory in the WordPress installation (typically wp-content/plugins/cforms or similar). Verify the plugin files exist on the server.Affected if The cforms plugin directory and its files are present on the server.
-
Identify the installed cforms versionCheck the plugin main file (usually cforms.php or readme.txt) for the version number. Compare this version against the affected range: all versions below 7.3 are vulnerable.Affected if The installed version is below 7.3, or if the version cannot be determined and cforms-css.php is present.
-
Verify cforms-css.php existsLocate the cforms-css.php file within the plugin directory. This file contains the vulnerable code that processes the tm parameter.Affected if The file cforms-css.php exists in the plugin directory.
-
Check if tm parameter is functionalInspect the cforms-css.php source code to confirm it processes the 'tm' parameter. Look for code that includes or requires files based on the tm parameter without sanitization.Affected if The tm parameter is present and used in file inclusion operations without proper input validation.
The environment is affected if the cforms plugin is installed with a version below 7.3 and the cforms-css.php file exists with a functional tm parameter for remote file inclusion.
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 dataUpgrade to cforms version 7.3 or later, or remove/disable the cforms plugin if upgrade is not possible. If using an affected version, remove the vulnerable cforms-css.php file or implement input validation on the tm parameter.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2008-0560 — 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-2008-0560 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