CVE-2009-0499
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 the forum code in Moodle 1.7 before 1.7.7, 1.8 before 1.8.8, and 1.9 before 1.9.4 allows remote attackers to delete unauthorized forum posts via a link or IMG tag to post.php.
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 Moodle's forum module allows remote attackers to delete unauthorized forum posts by tricking authenticated users into clicking malicious links or loading crafted IMG tags that submit requests to post.php 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= 1.7.1= 1.7.2= 1.7.3= 1.7.4= 1.7.5= 1.7.6= 1.8.1= 1.8.2= 1.8.3= 1.8.4= 1.8.5= 1.8.6CVSS 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
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/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.
-
Determine installed Moodle versionCheck the version.php file in your Moodle root directory, or access the admin page /admin/index.php which displays the installed version.Affected if The installed version is any of: 1.7.1, 1.7.2, 1.7.3, 1.7.4, 1.7.5, 1.7.6, 1.8.1, 1.8.2, 1.8.3, 1.8.4, 1.8.5, or 1.8.6
-
Verify forum module is activeLog in as administrator and navigate to Site Administration > Modules > Manage activities, or check if the forum activity module is present and enabled in any course.Affected if The forum module is installed and enabled on the Moodle site
-
Inspect post.php for CSRF protectionLocate the file mod/forum/post.php in your Moodle installation and examine its code for the presence of require_login() and any CSRF token validation (such as checking for a sesskey or form token).Affected if The post.php file lacks CSRF token validation or does not verify a session key before processing delete actions
You are affected if your Moodle installation runs version 1.7.1-1.7.6 or 1.8.1-1.8.6, has the forum module enabled, and the forum post.php lacks 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 dataUpgrade Moodle to version 1.7.7, 1.8.8, or 1.9.4 or later, which includes anti-CSRF token validation in the forum post.php functionality.
- 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-2009-0499 — 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-2009-0499 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