CVE-2008-7192
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 index.php in WoltLab Burning Board (wBB) 3.0.1, and possibly other 3.x versions, allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of users for requests that delete private messages via the pmID parameter in a delete action in a PM page, a different vulnerability than CVE-2008-0472.
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 confidenceCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in WoltLab Burning Board 3.0.1 allows remote attackers to delete users' private messages by tricking authenticated users into submitting malicious requests via the pmID parameter in the PM delete action, due to missing anti-CSRF token 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= 3.0.1CVSS 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
- 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.
-
Confirm WoltLab Burning Board versionLocate the version identifier in the application installation (typically found in the admin control panel, an about page, or version metadata file within the WoltLab installation directory)Affected if The installed version is exactly 3.0.1 (note: only this specific version is affected; later versions may include fixes)
-
Verify private messaging module is activeCheck if the private messaging feature is enabled for users in the WoltLab Burning Board admin settings or if test users can access PM functionalityAffected if The PM module is enabled and accessible to authenticated users (CSRF requires an authenticated session to exploit)
-
Inspect PM delete action for anti-CSRF protectionReview the source code or HTTP response of the private message delete form/action to determine whether a CSRF token (synchronizer token pattern) is generated and required for the pmID deletion requestAffected if The PM delete action does not validate an anti-CSRF token and relies solely on session authentication (this indicates the vulnerability is present)
A user is affected if they are running exactly version 3.0.1 of WoltLab Burning Board with the private messaging module enabled and the delete action lacks anti-CSRF token 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 dataImplement anti-CSRF tokens (synchronizer token pattern) for all state-changing operations in the private messaging module, including the delete action, and validate these tokens on the server side before processing deletion requests.
- 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-2008-7192 — 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-2008-7192 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