CVE-2011-5068
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 Support Incident Tracker (aka SiT!) 3.65 allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of user for requests that delete a user via user_delete.php and other unspecified programs.
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 confidenceMultiple CSRF vulnerabilities in Support Incident Tracker (SiT!) 3.65 allow remote attackers to forge authenticated requests that can delete users via user_delete.php and potentially other endpoints by tricking authenticated users into visiting malicious pages.
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= 3.65CVSS 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 SiT! versionCheck the installed version by accessing the admin panel, footer of pages, or looking for a version file in the web root (often version.php or similar).Affected if The installed version is exactly 3.65
-
Locate user_delete.phpCheck if the file user_delete.php exists in the web application root directory or common paths like /lib/, /admin/, or /_inc/.Affected if The file user_delete.php exists on the server
-
Verify CSRF protection presenceAccess user_delete.php or the user management interface while authenticated, then view the page source or intercept the HTTP request to check if a CSRF token or anti-CSRF parameter is included in the deletion form.Affected if No CSRF token or anti-CSRF parameter is found in the deletion form (form action lacks token generation)
-
Check session authenticationVerify that the application uses session-based authentication that would be exploited by a CSRF attack (check for PHPSESSID or similar session cookies).Affected if Session-based authentication is in use without SameSite cookie attributes set to Strict or Lax
You are affected if running SiT! version 3.65 with user_delete.php accessible and the user deletion form lacks anti-CSRF token protection.
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 on all state-changing forms (especially user_delete.php and similar admin functions) and validate them server-side; also consider SameSite cookie attributes and Origin/Referer header validation.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-5068 — 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-2011-5068 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