CVE-2010-5080
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 · uneditedThe Security/changepassword URL action in SilverStripe 2.3.x before 2.3.10 and 2.4.x before 2.4.4 passes a token as a GET parameter while changing a password through email, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive data and hijack the session via the HTTP referer logs on a server, aka "HTTP referer leakage."
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 confidenceIn SilverStripe versions 2.3.x before 2.3.10 and 2.4.x before 2.4.4, the Security/changepassword URL action transmits authentication tokens as GET parameters in the URL. Since URLs are logged in HTTP referer headers and server access logs, attackers with access to these logs can extract tokens and hijack user sessions to change passwords.
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= 2.3.0= 2.3.1= 2.3.2= 2.3.3= 2.3.4= 2.3.5= 2.3.6= 2.3.7= 2.3.8= 2.3.9= 2.4.0= 2.4.1CVSS 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.
-
Identify installed SilverStripe versionLocate the version file (usually silverstripe_version or sapphire/silverstripe_version in the web root) or check the SilverStripe admin dashboard for the version numberAffected if Version is 2.3.x before 2.3.10, or 2.4.x before 2.4.4, or any 2.4.0-2.4.3 version listed in the affected products
-
Verify the changepassword URL action uses GET parametersLog into the SilverStripe admin, navigate to change your password, or directly access Security/changepassword and observe the browser address bar. Look for a 't' parameter or security token appearing in the URL after submitting the password change formAffected if A security token (parameter like 't=' or 'key=') appears in the URL query string during or after the password change process
-
Inspect the changepassword form source codeView the page source of the Security/changepassword page. Search for forms that submit to Security/changepassword and check if the method is GET instead of POST, or if a hidden token field is absentAffected if The password change form uses method='GET' or lacks a hidden CSRF/token field, transmitting authentication tokens via URL parameters
-
Review server access logs for token leakageExamine your web server access logs (Apache access_log, Nginx access.log, or similar) for entries containing 'Security/changepassword' with token values in the URL query stringAffected if Log entries show URLs with Security/changepassword containing token parameters (t=, key=, or similar) in the request
You are affected if your SilverStripe version is 2.3.0-2.3.9 or 2.4.0-2.4.3 and authentication tokens for password changes appear in URLs rather than being transmitted via POST.
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 dataUpgrade to SilverStripe 2.3.10+ or 2.4.4+ which fixes this vulnerability by using POST-based token transmission instead of GET parameters.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2010-5080 — 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-2010-5080 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