dbcve.org
Spambam PluginPlugin / extension · WordPress

CVE-2008-4616

MEDIUM · 5.0 CVSS v2.0 Published 2008-10-20
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
59/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
The SpamBam plugin for WordPress allows remote attackers to bypass restrictions and add blog comments by using server-supplied values to calculate a shared key.

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 confidence

The SpamBam WordPress plugin has a logic flaw in its anti-spam mechanism where the shared key used to validate comments is calculated from server-supplied values. Attackers can exploit this by predicting or manipulating these values to generate a valid key, bypassing the spam protection and posting unwanted comments.

MitigationReplace the SpamBam plugin with a maintained anti-spam solution (such as Akismet, reCAPTCHA, or another actively supported WordPress spam filter) and remove the vulnerable plugin from all WordPress installations.

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
Spambam PluginPlugin / extension
Affected:all versions
Spambam PluginPlugin / extension
Affected:all versions

CVSS 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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify SpamBam plugin installation
    Check the WordPress wp-content/plugins directory for folders named 'spambam', 'spambam-plugin', 'the-spambam-plugin', or similar variations containing 'spambam' in the name. Also check for any plugin with 'Spambam' or 'Spanner Spambam' in its main PHP file headers.
    Affected if The SpamBam plugin files are present in the WordPress plugins directory.
  2. Verify plugin is active
    Log into the WordPress admin dashboard and navigate to Plugins > Installed Plugins. Look for SpamBam, Spambam, The Spanner Spambam, or similar entries in the active plugins list.
    Affected if The SpamBam plugin appears in the list of active WordPress plugins.
  3. Confirm anti-spam protection is enabled
    Access the SpamBam plugin settings page in WordPress admin (usually under Settings or Comments). Look for configuration options that enable the spam blocking mechanism, such as a checkbox to enable protection, a shared key setting, or any anti-spam feature toggle.
    Affected if The SpamBam anti-spam protection is turned on or configured in the plugin settings.
  4. Locate vulnerable key generation code
    Examine the main SpamBam PHP file(s) in the plugin directory. Search for code that constructs a validation key using server-supplied variables such as $_SERVER variables (REMOTE_ADDR, HTTP_USER_AGENT, etc.), session data, or time-based values. The vulnerable pattern involves deriving the key from inputs an attacker can predict or control.
    Affected if The plugin code shows the shared key is calculated from predictable or attacker-controllable server values rather than from a truly secret value.

If the SpamBam or Spanner Spambam plugin is installed, active, and its anti-spam feature is enabled in WordPress, the environment is affected by this vulnerability.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Replace the SpamBam plugin with a maintained anti-spam solution (such as Akismet, reCAPTCHA, or another actively supported WordPress spam filter) and remove the vulnerable plugin from all WordPress installations.

Fix this in Spambam Plugin Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
10.0 hours of engineering $1,800
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,880.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2008-4616 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2008-4616 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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