CVE-2010-2294
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 Plume CMS 1.2.4 and possibly earlier allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that change the administrator password via unspecified 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 confidenceCross-site request forgery vulnerability in Plume CMS 1.2.4 allows remote attackers to trick authenticated administrators into unknowingly changing their password. The attack exploits the lack of anti-CSRF tokens on password change operations, enabling attackers to force the admin browser to send authenticated requests that modify the administrator password.
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<= 1.2.4CVSS 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 Plume CMS versionLocate the version file or admin panel 'About' section in your Plume CMS installation. Common paths include /manager/about.php or checking the footer of admin pages. Compare your version number to the affected range: <= 1.2.4Affected if Your installed version is 1.2.4 or lower
-
Locate password change formNavigate to the administrator password change page in the CMS admin panel, typically under User Settings or Profile. Common paths include /manager/user.php or /manager/index.php?page=userAffected if You have access to an admin password change form in Plume CMS <= 1.2.4
-
Inspect password change form for CSRF tokenView the HTML source of the password change form and look for a hidden input field containing a token value (often named 'token', 'csrf_token', or similar). Check if the form includes any token generation mechanism.Affected if The password change form lacks a hidden CSRF token field or any anti-CSRF token mechanism in the HTML source
-
Verify server-side token validationIf you have access to the source code, examine the PHP file handling password changes (often user.php or similar in the manager directory). Look for server-side validation of the token before processing the password change request.Affected if The password change handler does not validate a CSRF token server-side before processing the request
You are affected if your Plume CMS installation is version 1.2.4 or lower AND the password change form 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 all state-changing operations, particularly password change forms, and validate these tokens server-side before processing requests. Additionally, configure SameSite cookie attributes for session cookies.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $7,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-2294 — 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-2010-2294 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