CVE-2008-5400
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 · uneditedMultiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in mvnForum before 1.2.1 GA allow remote attackers to (1) create forums, (2) change account privileges, (3) enable accounts, or (4) disable accounts as a product administrator via unspecified vectors, possibly related to HTTP Referer headers.
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 confidenceCSRF vulnerabilities in mvnForum before 1.2.1 GA allow remote attackers to trick authenticated administrators into performing unintended administrative actions including forum creation, privilege modification, and account enablement/disablement, likely due to missing or improper HTTP Referer header validation.
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<= 1.2= 1.0.0= 1.0.0_beta1= 1.0.0_beta2= 1.0.0_beta3= 1.0.0_rc1= 1.0.0_rc2= 1.0.0_rc3_01= 1.0.0_rc4= 1.0.0_rc4_04= 1.0.2.= 1.0_gaCVSS 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 mvnForum versionLocate the version information in the deployment - typically found in the admin dashboard, a VERSION file, or the source code headers. Check the main page source or login/admin areas for version display.Affected if The installed version is any of these: 1.2.0 or lower, 1.0.0, 1.0.0_beta1, 1.0.0_beta2, 1.0.0_beta3, 1.0.0_rc1, 1.0.0_rc2, 1.0.0_rc3_01, 1.0.0_rc4, 1.0.0_rc4_04, 1.0.2, or 1.0_ga (any version before 1.2.1 GA).
-
Access the admin control panelNavigate to the mvnForum admin interface (typically /mvnforumAdmin or similar admin path) while authenticated as an administrator.Affected if The admin interface is accessible and functional, indicating the application is running and potentially affected.
-
Inspect admin forms for anti-CSRF protectionView the HTML source of admin forms (forum creation, privilege modification, user account management). Check for the presence of hidden tokens, security tokens, or unique request identifiers in state-changing operations.Affected if Admin forms lack hidden anti-CSRF tokens or unique request validation mechanisms, and rely solely on Referer header checking.
-
Test Referer header validationSubmit an admin action with a missing or mismatched HTTP Referer header (using a tool like curl or Burp Suite). Observe whether the action is processed despite the Referer anomaly.Affected if Administrative actions complete successfully without proper Referer validation, confirming the vulnerability is exploitable.
If the installed mvnForum version is before 1.2.1 GA and admin forms lack anti-CSRF tokens or proper Referer validation, the environment is affected by this CVE.
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 mvnForum 1.2.1 GA or later which addresses CSRF protection; implement anti-CSRF tokens for all state-changing administrative operations as a defense-in-depth measure.
- 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-2008-5400 — 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-2008-5400 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