CVE-2009-3656
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 Shared Sign-On 5.x and 6.x, a module for Drupal, allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary 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 · moderate confidenceCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the Shared Sign-On Drupal module (versions 5.x and 6.x) allows remote attackers to hijack authentication of arbitrary users by tricking authenticated users into unknowingly submitting malicious requests to the SSO module.
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= 5.x= 6.xCVSS 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 if Shared Sign On module is installedLocate the module directory: typically in Drupal root under modules/ or sites/all/modules/ and look for folder named 'sso', 'shared_sign_on', or 'tim nelson sso'. Check for files like sso.module, sso.infoAffected if Module directory is not found in the Drupal installation
-
Determine installed version of the Shared Sign On moduleOpen the module's .info file (e.g., sso.info or shared_sign_on.info) and read the 'version' or 'core' fields. Alternatively, check the module's main .module file for version commentsAffected if Version displayed is 5.x or 6.x (any minor version within these branches)
-
Verify if the module is enabled in DrupalAccess Drupal admin panel, navigate to Administer > Site building > Modules (or /admin/build/modules in older Drupal versions). Look for the Shared Sign On or Tim Nelson SSO module in the list and confirm it is checked/enabledAffected if Module appears as enabled in the Drupal module administration page
-
Check for absence of anti-CSRF protections in module formsReview the module's .module file, specifically any form definitions (hook_form, form builder functions) and state-changing operations (user authentication, token handling, session management). Look for absence of form_token, drupal_get_token, or token validation logicAffected if State-changing forms and operations in the module lack form tokens or token validation mechanisms
If the Tim Nelson Shared Sign On module versions 5.x or 6.x is installed and enabled in Drupal, and its forms lack CSRF token protections, the environment is affected by this vulnerability.
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 (form tokens) in all state-changing operations within the SSO module, validate HTTP Referer headers, and require re-authentication for sensitive actions.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-3656 — 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-2009-3656 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