CVE-2009-3580
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 am.pl in SQL-Ledger 2.8.24 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests that change a password via the login, new_password, and confirm_password parameters in a preferences action.
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 SQL-Ledger 2.8.24's am.pl allows remote attackers to craft malicious pages that silently submit password change requests via the preferences action, exploiting the lack of anti-CSRF tokens on the login, new_password, and confirm_password parameters to hijack user sessions.
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= 2.8.24CVSS 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.
-
Identify SQL-Ledger installation and versionLocate the SQL-Ledger installation directory and check the version number in the main configuration file or version file. Common paths include /usr/local/sql-ledger, /var/www/sql-ledger, or the application root directory.Affected if The installed version is exactly 2.8.24
-
Locate the am.pl scriptFind the am.pl file within the SQL-Ledger installation. This is typically in the bin or cgi-bin directory.Affected if The am.pl file exists at the expected path within the SQL-Ledger installation
-
Verify the preferences password change form existsAccess the web interface and navigate to the user preferences or password change functionality, or examine the am.pl source code to locate the preferences action handler.Affected if The preferences action that handles password changes is present and accessible
-
Inspect form for anti-CSRF token presenceView the HTML source of the password change form in the preferences section. Look for a hidden input field containing a token value, typically named something like csrf_token, auth_token, or token.Affected if The password change form lacks a hidden anti-CSRF token field in the HTML
-
Check server-side token validationExamine the am.pl source code for the preferences action handler. Search for code that validates a token parameter before processing password change requests.Affected if No server-side validation of an anti-CSRF token is implemented in the preferences password change handler
A user is affected if they are running SQL-Ledger version 2.8.24 and the password change form in am.pl lacks 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 the preferences password change form and validate them server-side before processing; also consider adding Referer/Origin header validation as a secondary defense.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-3580 — 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-2009-3580 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