CVE-2009-0482
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 Bugzilla before 3.2 before 3.2.1, 3.3 before 3.3.2, and other versions before 3.2 allows remote attackers to perform bug updating activities as other users via a link or IMG tag to process_bug.cgi.
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 vulnerability in Bugzilla's process_bug.cgi allows remote attackers to trick authenticated users into performing unintended bug update operations. Attackers can exploit this by embedding malicious links or IMG tags that trigger bug state changes without the user's consent.
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= 2.10= 2.12= 2.14= 2.14.1= 2.14.2= 2.14.3= 2.14.4= 2.14.5= 2.16= 2.16.1= 2.16.2= 2.16.3CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:N/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 Bugzilla versionAccess the Bugzilla web interface and navigate to the 'Help' or 'About' page, or check the 'Bugzilla/VERSION' file in the installation directoryAffected if The installed version matches 2.10, 2.12, 2.14, 2.14.1, 2.14.2, 2.14.3, 2.14.4, 2.14.5, 2.16, 2.16.1, 2.16.2, or 2.16.3
-
Inspect process_bug.cgi form for anti-CSRF tokenView the HTML source of the bug entry/edit form (process_bug.cgi) and search for a hidden input field containing a token or formkey value, or check for a 'token' parameter in the form submissionAffected if No anti-CSRF token (form key) field is present in the bug update form
-
Verify token validation in process_bug.cgi codeExamine the process_bug.cgi script source code to confirm that a token parameter is received and validated server-side before processing bug updatesAffected if The code does not validate a token or form key parameter before processing bug state changes
-
Check bug forms for token presenceSubmit a bug update and inspect the HTTP POST request parameters to confirm a token/formkey parameter is being sent with the requestAffected if No token or formkey parameter is included in the POST data when updating a bug
The environment is affected if Bugzilla version is one of the listed affected versions AND the bug update forms lack 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 (form keys) in all Bugzilla forms that perform state-changing operations, and validate these tokens server-side before processing any bug updates.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-0482 — 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-2009-0482 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