AutotaggingApplication · Skyarc

CVE-2011-3994

MEDIUM · 6.8 CVSS v2.0 Published 2011-11-03
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to after 5.251 or later.
See remediation →
77/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in SKYARC MTCMS before 5.252, and the MultiFileUploader 0.44 and earlier, DuplicateEntry 1.2 and earlier, MailPack 1.741 and earlier, and AutoTagging 0.08 and earlier plugins for Movable Type, allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests that modify data.

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 confidence

Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in SKYARC MTCMS before 5.252 and multiple Movable Type plugins (MultiFileUploader, DuplicateEntry, MailPack, AutoTagging). Allows remote attackers to hijack authenticated user sessions to perform unauthorized data modifications by tricking users into visiting malicious pages.

MitigationImplement anti-CSRF tokens (synchronizer token pattern) on all state-changing forms and verify request origin via Referer/Origin headers. Ensure tokens are validated server-side for all POST/PUT/DELETE operations.

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
AutotaggingApplication
Affected:<= 0.08
DuplicateentryApplication
Affected:<= 1.2
MailpackApplication
Affected:<= 1.741
MtcmsApplication
Affected:<= 5.251= 5.2= 5.21= 5.22= 5.23= 5.24= 5.25= 5.251
MultifileuploaderApplication
Affected:<= 0.44

CVSS 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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Check MTCMS version
    Access the admin dashboard system information page or check the version file in the MTCMS installation directory
    Affected if The installed version is 5.251 or earlier, or matches any of these exact versions: 5.2, 5.21, 5.22, 5.23, 5.24, 5.25, 5.251
  2. Identify installed Movable Type plugins
    Navigate to the plugins administration panel and list all installed plugins
    Affected if Any of these plugins are installed: Autotagging (version 0.08 or lower), Duplicateentry (version 1.2 or lower), Mailpack (version 1.741 or lower), Multifileuploader (version 0.44 or lower)
  3. Inspect form code for CSRF protection
    View the HTML source of state-changing forms (create/edit entries, upload files, send mail) and check for the presence of a CSRF token field (commonly named __csrf_token, token, or similar)
    Affected if The forms lack a hidden CSRF token field or the token is missing from the form submission handling
  4. Verify token validation on server side
    Examine the server-side code that handles form submissions for these plugins and confirm whether the CSRF token is validated before processing the request
    Affected if The form handling code does not validate a CSRF token or verify Referer/Origin headers
  5. Test for CSRF vulnerability
    Create a test HTML page that submits a request to a vulnerable endpoint (such as creating an entry or sending mail) without a token, and attempt to submit it from an authenticated browser session
    Affected if The request succeeds without a valid CSRF token, confirming the vulnerability

You are affected if you run MTCMS version 5.251 or earlier, or any of the listed plugin versions at or below their vulnerable thresholds, and your forms lack CSRF token validation.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Upgrade available Upgrade to a release after 5.251
Interim mitigation

Implement anti-CSRF tokens (synchronizer token pattern) on all state-changing forms and verify request origin via Referer/Origin headers. Ensure tokens are validated server-side for all POST/PUT/DELETE operations.

Fix this in Autotagging Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
16.0 hours of engineering $2,800
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,480.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-3994 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2011-3994 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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