CVE-2008-2524
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 · uneditedBlogPHP 2.0 allows remote attackers to bypass authentication, and post (1) messages or (2) comments as an arbitrary user, via a modified blogphp_username field in a 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 confidenceBlogPHP 2.0 has an authentication bypass vulnerability where remote attackers can post messages or comments as arbitrary users by modifying the blogphp_username field in a cookie. This allows unauthenticated or impersonated access to posting functionality through client-side credential manipulation.
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 data= 2.0CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/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 BlogPHP installation and versionCheck the application footer, meta tags, or version files for 'BlogPHP' and version '2.0'. Look at page source or index files.Affected if BlogPHP version 2.0 is found running in the environment
-
Locate cookie-based authentication mechanismInspect cookies set by the application using browser dev tools or by checking login/authentication code for 'blogphp_username' cookie usage.Affected if The application uses a blogphp_username cookie for user identification
-
Verify cookie value controls user identityExamine the authentication logic in the codebase to confirm the blogphp_username cookie value directly determines the authenticated user without server-side validation.Affected if User identity is determined solely by the blogphp_username cookie value without server-side verification
-
Test if posting is accessible via cookie manipulationSubmit a post request with a modified blogphp_username cookie value (e.g., set to an admin username) while not having valid server-side session credentials.Affected if Posts can be submitted or user identity can be impersonated by modifying the blogphp_username cookie
A user is affected if BlogPHP 2.0 is installed and the application relies on the blogphp_username cookie for user identification without server-side session 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 dataReplace cookie-based user identification with server-side session validation; implement cryptographic integrity checks on session data and require proper authentication verification before allowing post operations.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2008-2524 — 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-2008-2524 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