CVE-2009-0484
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 3.0 before 3.0.7, 3.2 before 3.2.1, and 3.3 before 3.3.2 allows remote attackers to delete shared or saved searches via a link or IMG tag to buglist.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 (CSRF) vulnerability in Bugzilla versions 3.0 before 3.0.7, 3.2 before 3.2.1, and 3.3 before 3.3.2 allows remote attackers to delete shared or saved searches by tricking authenticated users into visiting malicious links or loading attacker-controlled IMG tags that target buglist.cgi.
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= 3.0.0= 3.0.1= 3.0.2= 3.0.3= 3.0.4= 3.0.5= 3.0.6= 3.2= 3.3.1CVSS 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
- 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 versionCheck the Bugzilla version by accessing the 'About' page in the Bugzilla interface, or by looking at the VERSION file in the Bugzilla installation directory if you have filesystem accessAffected if The installed version is 3.0.0 through 3.0.6, 3.2.0, or 3.3.1 (any version before 3.0.7, 3.2.1, or 3.3.2)
-
Verify buglist.cgi is accessibleConfirm that the buglist.cgi script is accessible on your Bugzilla server by attempting to access it via HTTP/HTTPSAffected if buglist.cgi is exposed and reachable on the network
-
Confirm authenticated user sessions existCheck if there are any user accounts with saved searches or shared searches configured in the Bugzilla databaseAffected if There are users with saved or shared searches stored in the system
-
Check for CSRF token implementationExamine the buglist.cgi source code or its form handling for the presence of anti-CSRF tokens on the delete search functionalityAffected if Anti-CSRF tokens are NOT implemented on the delete search feature in buglist.cgi
You are affected if your Bugzilla version is 3.0.0-3.0.6, 3.2.0, or 3.3.1 AND buglist.cgi is accessible to users with saved searches and the delete search action lacks CSRF protection.
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 Bugzilla to version 3.0.7, 3.2.1, 3.3.2 or later to obtain the CSRF fix, or implement anti-CSRF tokens on the delete search functionality in buglist.cgi.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-0484 — 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-2009-0484 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