CVE-2009-1518
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 Beltane before 2.3.11 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims via unknown vectors. NOTE: the provenance of this information is unknown; the details are obtained solely from third party information.
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 confidenceCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Beltane content management system versions prior to 2.3.11 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of victims by tricking authenticated users into submitting malicious requests to the application.
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<= 2.3.9= 1.0.15= 1.0.16= 2.3.8CVSS 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.
-
Locate Beltane CMS installationSearch the system for Beltane CMS files, typically installed in web server directories such as /var/www/, /htdocs/, or the webroot. Look for directories named 'beltane' or files containing 'beltane' in the name.Affected if Beltane CMS is present on the system
-
Determine installed Beltane versionLocate the version file or check the main Beltane application file (such as index.php, version.php, or a config file) to find the exact version number displayed in the software.Affected if The installed version is 2.3.8, 2.3.9, 1.0.15, 1.0.16, or any version prior to 2.3.11
-
Identify state-changing operationsReview the Beltane application for forms and endpoints that perform actions such as user management, content creation/editing/deletion, settings changes, or file uploads.Affected if The application contains forms or endpoints that modify data without requiring user confirmation
-
Check for anti-CSRF token implementationExamine HTML forms in the Beltane interface for a hidden token field (commonly named 'token', 'csrf_token', 'authenticity_token', or similar). Submit a form request without this token and observe whether the server rejects it.Affected if State-changing forms lack a CSRF token field or the server accepts requests without validating a token
A user is affected if Beltane CMS is installed with version 2.3.8, 2.3.9, 1.0.15, 1.0.16, or any version prior to 2.3.11 and the application performs state-changing operations without anti-CSRF token 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 dataImplement anti-CSRF tokens (synchronizer token pattern) on all state-changing operations and validate these tokens server-side; also consider SameSite cookie attributes and Referer header validation as defense-in-depth measures.
- 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-2009-1518 — 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-2009-1518 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