DrupalCMS
CVE-2012-0826
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 the Aggregator module in Drupal 6.x before 6.23 and 7.x before 7.11 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims for requests that update feeds and possibly cause a denial of service (loss of updates due to rate limit) via unspecified 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 Drupal's Aggregator module allows remote attackers to hijack authenticated user sessions to update feeds without user consent. Affects Drupal 6.x before 6.23 and 7.x before 7.11. The vulnerability can also potentially cause denial of service through rate limit exhaustion.
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
DrupalCMS
= 6.0= 6.1= 6.2= 6.3= 6.4= 6.5= 6.6= 6.7= 6.8= 6.9= 6.10= 6.11CVSS 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.
-
Check Drupal core versionLocate the CHANGELOG.txt file in the Drupal root directory and read the first line, or access the Status Report at admin/reports/status in the Drupal administration interfaceAffected if The version is Drupal 6.x before 6.23, or Drupal 7.x before 7.11
-
Verify Aggregator module is enabledNavigate to the Modules administration page (admin/modules) and look for the Aggregator module in the list, or query the system table in the database for the module statusAffected if The Aggregator module is listed as enabled or installed
-
Confirm feed import/update functionality is accessibleCheck if the Aggregator module's import form is accessible at admin/config/services/aggregator or test adding/updating a feed, or inspect the permissions for the 'administer news feeds' or 'add news feeds' permissionsAffected if Authenticated users can access feed management functions through the Aggregator module interface
-
Identify feed update endpointsReview the aggregator module's form handlers and routes to locate the URL paths that process feed updates (typically aggregator/sources/*/refresh or aggregator/feed/*/update)Affected if The module lacks CSRF token validation on feed update operations
You are affected if your Drupal installation is version 6.x before 6.23 or 7.x before 7.11 AND the Aggregator module is enabled with accessible feed update functionality.
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 Drupal core to version 6.23 or 7.11 or later to obtain the patched Aggregator module with proper CSRF token validation.
Fix this in Drupal
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-0826 — 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-2012-0826 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