CVE-2008-1395
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 · uneditedPlone CMS does not record users' authentication states, and implements the logout feature solely on the client side, which makes it easier for context-dependent attackers to reuse a logged-out session.
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 confidencePlone CMS fails to invalidate sessions server-side during logout, relying only on client-side cookie removal. This means the session token remains valid on the server after a user clicks logout, allowing anyone who obtains the session token (e.g., via network interception or XSS) to continue impersonating the legitimate user even after they believe they have logged out.
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 Plone CMS installationCheck if Plone is running in your environment by looking for Plone-specific processes, services, or web applications. Common indicators include Plone-specific directories, services, or the presence of Plone in installed web applications.Affected if Plone CMS is installed in any version - all versions are affected by this vulnerability.
-
Determine Plone versionCheck the installed Plone version using package management tools (e.g., pip show plone, dpkg -l plone*, or rpm -qa plone*) or by accessing the Plone control panel if available.Affected if Any version of Plone CMS is installed - the vulnerability affects all versions.
-
Examine logout behaviorLog into Plone with a test account, capture the session identifier (cookie or token), perform logout, then attempt to use the original session identifier to access protected resources.Affected if The original session identifier remains valid and allows access after logout - this indicates the server is not invalidating sessions.
-
Check session management configurationReview Plone configuration files and session management settings (typically in zope.conf, plone.app.controlpanel, or site configuration) to verify if server-side session invalidation is implemented on logout.Affected if Session configuration shows no server-side invalidation logic or the logout mechanism relies solely on client-side cookie clearing.
If Plone CMS is running and the session token remains valid after logout (tested in step 3), the environment is affected by this vulnerability.
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 server-side session invalidation that destroys the session token on the server when a user logs out, ensuring tokens cannot be reused after logout.
- Consultation4.0 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 $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2008-1395 — 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-2008-1395 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