CVE-2008-4899
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 Planetluc RateMe 1.3.3 allows remote attackers to perform unauthorized actions as other users via unspecified vectors.
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 Planetluc RateMe 1.3.3 allows remote attackers to trick authenticated users into performing unintended actions on the application, as the application lacks proper anti-CSRF token validation on state-changing operations.
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= 1.3.3CVSS 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.
-
Identify the installed RateMe versionLocate the version identifier in the application files, typically in a version file, header comment, or admin interface. Common locations include a version.php file, the main script header, or an about/readme file within the RateMe installation directory.Affected if The installed version is exactly 1.3.3
-
Identify state-changing operations in the applicationLocate forms and requests that modify application state, such as submitting ratings, saving settings, or updating data. Review the application source code for POST/GET requests that perform database writes or configuration changes.Affected if State-changing forms or requests exist in the application
-
Inspect forms for anti-CSRF tokensExamine the HTML source of state-changing forms to determine if they include a hidden token field (commonly named token, csrf, or similar) that gets submitted with the form data.Affected if The forms do not contain any hidden anti-CSRF token fields
-
Check server-side token validationReview the server-side code handling form submissions to determine if it validates an anti-CSRF token before processing state-changing requests. Look for token verification logic in the form handler scripts.Affected if The server-side code does not validate anti-CSRF tokens on state-changing operations
User is affected if running Planetluc RateMe version 1.3.3 and the application lacks anti-CSRF token validation on its state-changing forms and requests.
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 anti-CSRF tokens (synchronizer token pattern) on all state-changing forms and requests, and validate Origin/Referer headers on POST requests to ensure requests originate from trusted sources.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,480.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2008-4899 — 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-2008-4899 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