CVE-2010-3307
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 · uneditedMultiple PHP remote file inclusion vulnerabilities in themes/default/index.php in Free Simple CMS 1.0 and earlier allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code via a URL in the (1) body, (2) footer, (3) header, (4) menu_left, or (5) menu_right parameter.
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 confidenceFree Simple CMS 1.0 and earlier contains multiple Remote File Inclusion (RFI) vulnerabilities in themes/default/index.php where the body, footer, header, menu_left, and menu_right parameters are directly used in PHP include/require statements without sanitization, allowing remote attackers to inject and execute arbitrary PHP code via malicious URLs.
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= 1.0CVSS 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
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/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 Free Simple CMS installationSearch the web server document root for the 'themes/default/index.php' file or look for files named 'index.php' that contain 'Free Simple CMS' in the source codeAffected if The CMS is present on the server
-
Identify installed versionCheck the version by reviewing any version.php file, README, or the main index.php header comments for version informationAffected if The version is 1.0 or any version earlier than 1.0
-
Verify vulnerable file existsConfirm the file 'themes/default/index.php' exists in the CMS installation directoryAffected if The file themes/default/index.php is present
-
Inspect vulnerable code patternOpen themes/default/index.php and search for include() or require() statements using the variables: body, footer, header, menu_left, or menu_right without sanitization (no preg_match, no allowlist, no basename)Affected if The code contains direct include/require statements using these parameters without input validation
-
Check PHP allow_url_include settingCreate a PHP file with 'phpinfo();' or check php.ini for the 'allow_url_include' directive - it should be set to On for RFI to workAffected if allow_url_include is enabled (On) in PHP configuration
The environment is affected if Free Simple CMS version 1.0 or earlier is installed, the vulnerable themes/default/index.php file exists with unauthenticated include/require statements using the body/footer/header/menu_left/menu_right parameters, and PHP allow_url_include is enabled.
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 dataReplace dynamic includes with fixed paths or implement strict allowlist-based input validation on all affected parameters, and disable allow_url_include in php.ini as defense-in-depth.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-3307 — 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-2010-3307 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