CVE-2011-1325
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 EC-CUBE before 2.11.0 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims via unknown 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 · moderate confidenceCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the EC-CUBE e-commerce platform versions prior to 2.11.0 allows remote attackers to hijack authenticated user sessions by tricking logged-in users into submitting malicious requests via unknown vectors, potentially executing unauthorized administrative actions.
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<= 2.11.0= 1.1.0= 1.1.1= 1.2.0= 1.3.0= 1.3.1= 1.3.2= 1.3.3= 1.3.4= 1.4.0= 1.4.1= 1.4.2CVSS 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.
-
Identify EC-CUBE versionLocate the version identifier in the application (commonly found in a version file, config file, or footer of admin pages). Compare this to the affected ranges: versions 1.1.0 through 1.4.2, and any version prior to 2.11.0.Affected if The installed version is 1.1.0, 1.1.1, 1.2.0, 1.3.0, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.4.0, 1.4.1, 1.4.2, or any version below 2.11.0.
-
Verify admin interface accessibilityConfirm whether the EC-CUBE administrator panel is accessible over the network, as the CSRF flaw can hijack authenticated admin sessions to perform unauthorized actions.Affected if The admin panel is exposed and reachable by potential attackers.
-
Check for CSRF token implementation in formsInspect the HTML source of state-changing forms (such as product management, order management, or user management pages) to determine if anti-CSRF tokens or unique session tokens are included in the form submissions.Affected if Forms lack CSRF token parameters and rely solely on session authentication without token validation.
-
Review form submission handlingExamine how form submissions are processed on the server side to see if the application validates the Origin, Referer header, or a custom CSRF token before processing state-changing requests.Affected if The application does not validate any CSRF-specific tokens or headers on state-changing operations.
A user is affected if their EC-CUBE installation is version 1.1.0 through 1.4.2 or any version prior to 2.11.0 and the admin interface is accessible without additional CSRF protections.
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 EC-CUBE to version 2.11.0 or later which implements proper CSRF token validation, or alternatively implement anti-CSRF tokens on all state-changing operations and validate the Origin/Referer headers.
- 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-2011-1325 — 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-2011-1325 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