CVE-2009-1733
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 IPplan 4.91a allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that (1) change the password, (2) add users, or (3) delete users via unknown vectors.
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 confidenceCSRF vulnerability in IPplan 4.91a allows remote attackers to hijack administrator authentication by tricking authenticated admins into visiting malicious pages, enabling unauthorized password changes, user additions, or user deletions.
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= 4.91aCVSS 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 IPplan versionLocate and inspect the IPplan installation directory, check for version files, or access the admin interface 'About' or system information page to identify the installed version numberAffected if The installed version is exactly 4.91a (no other version is affected)
-
Identify admin state-changing formsAccess the IPplan web interface as administrator and locate forms for password changes, user additions, and user deletions - typically found in admin settings or user management sectionsAffected if The target environment uses these admin forms without visible evidence of anti-CSRF token mechanisms
-
Inspect form source for CSRF tokensView the HTML source code of the password change, add user, and delete user forms and search for hidden input fields containing token values (commonly named 'token', 'csrf', 'nonce', 'auth_token', or similar), or check if forms submit to endpoints that validate tokensAffected if The forms lack hidden CSRF token fields and there is no server-side token validation evidence in the form markup
-
Test token presence on form submissionSubmit a test password change or user addition request from an external context (e.g., using a tool like Burp Suite to remove any token and attempt the request) and observe if the server accepts or rejects the request without requiring a valid tokenAffected if The server accepts and processes state-changing requests without rejecting them due to missing or invalid CSRF tokens
A user is affected if they are running IPplan version 4.91a and the admin forms for password changes, user additions, or user deletions do not implement 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) on all state-changing forms (password change, add user, delete user) and validate these tokens server-side before processing requests.
- 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-2009-1733 — 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-2009-1733 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