CVE-2011-1954
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 cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in Post Revolution 0.8.0c-2 and earlier allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests to (1) ajax-weblog-guardar.php, (2) verpost.php, (3) comments.php, or (4) perfil.php.
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 confidenceMultiple CSRF vulnerabilities in Post Revolution 0.8.0c-2 and earlier allow remote attackers to force authenticated users to unknowingly submit requests to ajax-weblog-guardar.php, verpost.php, comments.php, and perfil.php, hijacking their session for malicious 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<= 0.8.0c-2= 0.6.2= 0.6.3= 0.6.4= 0.6.5= 0.6.6= 0.7.0= 0.8.0= 0.8.0b= 0.8.0cCVSS 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 Post Revolution installation and versionLocate the application's version file, header, or admin panel that displays the software version. Common locations include a version info file, footer of web pages, or administrative dashboard.Affected if Installed version matches <= 0.8.0c-2, or is one of: 0.6.2, 0.6.3, 0.6.4, 0.6.5, 0.6.6, 0.7.0, 0.8.0, 0.8.0b, or 0.8.0c
-
Check if vulnerable PHP endpoints existVerify the presence of the four affected files in the web root: ajax-weblog-guardar.php, verpost.php, comments.php, and perfil.php. Attempt to access them via HTTP to confirm they are reachable.Affected if Any of these four PHP files exist and are accessible on the server
-
Inspect form submissions for anti-CSRF tokensExamine the HTML source of forms submitted to the four vulnerable endpoints. Look for hidden input fields containing token values, or check if forms use any CSRF protection mechanism.Affected if Forms targeting ajax-weblog-guardar.php, verpost.php, comments.php, or perfil.php lack anti-CSRF token fields
-
Verify server-side token validationReview the server-side code in the affected PHP files to determine if they validate anti-CSRF tokens before processing requests. Check for token verification logic using session variables or database lookups.Affected if The PHP endpoints do not implement server-side validation of CSRF tokens
You are affected if you run Post Revolution version 0.8.0c-2 or earlier, the vulnerable PHP files exist, and forms lack anti-CSRF token protection with missing server-side validation.
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 forms and validate tokens server-side for these four endpoints; also consider checking Referer headers and implementing SameSite cookie attributes as defense-in-depth.
- Consultation3.0 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 $6,720.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-1954 — 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-2011-1954 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