CVE-2010-2345
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 odCMS 1.06, and possibly earlier, allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that change the administrative password, and other unspecified requests.
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 (CSRF) vulnerability in odCMS 1.06 allows remote attackers to trick authenticated administrators into unknowingly submitting malicious requests that can change the admin password or perform other administrative actions. The application lacks proper anti-CSRF token validation on sensitive admin forms, enabling attackers to craft forged requests that the victim's browser will execute with the valid session credentials.
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= 1.06CVSS 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 odCMS installation versionLocate the version file or footer of the odCMS installation, typically found in an index.php, footer template, or version information file within the web root directoryAffected if The installed version is odCMS 1.06 (exact match)
-
Locate administrative login pageAccess the admin login URL for the odCMS installation (commonly /admin or /administrator path) and authenticate with admin credentialsAffected if You can log in as an administrator to access admin panels
-
Inspect admin form HTML for CSRF tokensView the page source of sensitive admin forms (password change, user management, settings) and search for anti-CSRF token fields such as 'token', 'csrf', 'nonce', or similar security token inputsAffected if The admin forms lack anti-CSRF token fields in the HTML or the tokens are not validated server-side
-
Test form submission behaviorSubmit a request to a sensitive admin action (e.g., password change) without including any token value and observe if the request is processed successfullyAffected if The server accepts and processes state-changing requests without requiring a valid anti-CSRF token
You are affected if running odCMS version 1.06 and administrative forms do not include or validate anti-CSRF tokens on sensitive operations.
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 administrative forms and validate these tokens on the server-side before processing any state-changing requests.
- 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-2010-2345 — 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-2010-2345 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