CVE-2011-0440
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 Mahara 1.2.x before 1.2.7 and 1.3.x before 1.3.4 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests that delete blogs.
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 confidenceMahara before versions 1.2.7 and 1.3.4 lacks anti-CSRF protection on blog deletion functionality. Attackers can craft malicious HTML or JavaScript that, when visited by an authenticated Mahara user, silently triggers blog deletion requests using the user's active session.
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= 1.2.0= 1.2.1= 1.2.2= 1.2.3= 1.2.4= 1.2.5= 1.2.6= 1.3.0= 1.3.1= 1.3.2= 1.3.3CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:N/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 Mahara installation directoryIdentify the web root directory where Mahara is installed. Common paths include /var/www/html/, /var/www/, or custom web directories. Look for the main Mahara PHP files such as index.php, lib.php, or config.php.Affected if Mahara software is present on the system
-
Determine installed Mahara versionCheck the version file in the Mahara installation. Look for a version.php, lib/version.php, or similar file that contains the $config->version or $release variable. Alternatively, access the Mahara admin interface and look for the version number in the site information or about page.Affected if Version cannot be determined or is not visible
-
Compare version against affected rangesCompare the installed version number to the affected ranges: 1.2.0 through 1.2.6, and 1.3.0 through 1.3.3. If the version falls within these ranges, the installation is vulnerable.Affected if Version is 1.2.0, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.2.6, 1.3.0, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, or 1.3.3
-
Verify blog functionality is enabledCheck if the blog artifact type is enabled in Mahara. Navigate to the Mahara admin panel, go to Site Administration -> System -> Extensions, or examine the config.php file for active artefact plugins. Look for entries related to 'blog' or 'artefact/blog'.Affected if Blog functionality is active and accessible to users
If Mahara version is 1.2.0-1.2.6 or 1.3.0-1.3.3 and the blog feature is enabled, the environment is vulnerable to CVE-2011-0440 CSRF attacks on blog deletion.
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 Mahara to version 1.2.7, 1.3.4, or later which includes CSRF tokens for state-changing operations. If immediate upgrade is not feasible, implement anti-CSRF tokens on all POST requests affecting user data.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-0440 — 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-2011-0440 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