CVE-2008-3262
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 · uneditedCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Claroline before 1.8.10 allows remote attackers to change passwords, related to lack of a requirement for the previous password.
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 confidenceCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Claroline before version 1.8.10 allows remote attackers to change user passwords without authentication by tricking authenticated users into submitting malicious requests, because the password change function lacks CSRF protection and does not require verification of the current password.
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<= 1.8.9= 1.2= 1.3= 1.4= 1.5= 1.5.3= 1.5.4= 1.6= 1.6_beta= 1.6_rc1= 1.7= 1.7.1CVSS 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
- None
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/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 installed Claroline versionLocate the version file or admin panel in the Claroline installation and retrieve the version numberAffected if Version is 1.8.9 or lower, or matches 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.5.3, 1.5.4, 1.6, 1.6_beta, 1.6_rc1, 1.7, or 1.7.1
-
Verify password change form has CSRF tokenAccess the password change form in the user settings and inspect the HTML source for a hidden token field or anti-CSRF token parameterAffected if No token field is present in the password change form
-
Check password change endpoint requires current passwordSubmit a password change request using a tool like curl or browser and observe if the endpoint validates the user's current password before allowing the changeAffected if The endpoint accepts a new password without verifying the current password
-
Confirm password change function is exposedDetermine if the password change functionality is accessible to authenticated users through the web interfaceAffected if The password change feature is enabled and accessible to users
A user is affected if their Claroline installation version is 1.8.9 or lower (or one of the specific listed versions) and the password change form lacks CSRF tokens or does not require current password verification.
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 Claroline 1.8.10 or later which implements CSRF tokens and requires previous password verification for password changes.
- 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-2008-3262 — 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-2008-3262 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