CVE-2009-4076
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 Roundcube Webmail 0.2.2 and earlier allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified users for requests that modify user information via unspecified vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2009-4077.
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 Roundcube Webmail 0.2.2 and earlier allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of users and modify user information by tricking authenticated users into submitting malicious requests.
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<= 0.2.2= 0.1= 0.1.1= 0.2= 0.2.1CVSS 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 Roundcube versionCheck the program/include/main.inc file or the installer/config.php for the $rcmail_config['version'] or $RCI->config->get('version') value; alternatively, examine the CHANGELOG or VERSION file in the web root directoryAffected if The version number is 0.2.2, 0.2.1, 0.2, 0.1.1, 0.1, or any version <= 0.2.2
-
Identify state-changing endpointsReview the application source code for forms or links that perform user account modifications, such as settings/save, user/ edit, or similar handlers in the program/ directory that modify user dataAffected if No anti-CSRF token validation logic is found in these handlers
-
Inspect form implementationsExamine the HTML form templates in skins/default/templates/ or similar template directories and check whether hidden token fields (e.g., _token, _csrf) are present in forms that change user dataAffected if Forms that modify user information lack hidden token input fields for CSRF protection
-
Check session cookie configurationExamine the session cookie configuration in program/include/main.inc or config files for the SameSite attribute; inspect Set-Cookie headers in browser developer toolsAffected if Cookies are set without the SameSite attribute or without secure CSRF token validation for state-changing requests
A user is affected if their Roundcube installation version is 0.2.2 or earlier and state-changing operations lack synchronizer token pattern or SameSite cookie protections.
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) or SameSite cookie attributes across all state-changing endpoints, and upgrade to a patched version if available.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-4076 — 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-2009-4076 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