CVE-2012-1031
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 · uneditedUnspecified vulnerability in EPiServer CMS 5 and 6 through 6R2, in certain configurations using Forms Authentication, allows remote authenticated users to obtain WebAdmins access by leveraging Edit Mode privileges, a different vulnerability than CVE-2011-3416 and CVE-2011-3417.
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 confidenceAuthenticated privilege escalation vulnerability in EPiServer CMS 5/6 (through 6R2) where users with Edit Mode privileges can obtain WebAdmins access in certain configurations using Forms Authentication.
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= 5.1.422.4= 5.1.422.122= 5.1.422.256= 5.1.422.267= 5.2.375.7= 5.2.375.133= 5.2.375.236= 6.0.530.0= 6.1.379.0CVSS 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
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:S/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 EPiServer CMS installation and versionCheck the installed EPiServer CMS version by inspecting the assembly version of EPiServer.dll in the bin folder, or look in the web.config for the EPiServerFramework version elementAffected if The installed version matches one of the affected builds: 5.1.422.4, 5.1.422.122, 5.1.422.256, 5.1.422.267, 5.2.375.7, 5.2.375.133, 5.2.375.236, 6.0.530.0, or 6.1.379.0, or falls within the 5.x through 6R2 range up to 6.1.379.0
-
Verify Forms Authentication is enabledInspect the web.config file and look for authentication mode set to 'Forms' in the <authentication> elementAffected if Forms Authentication mode is configured and active for the EPiServer application
-
Confirm Edit Mode user accounts existReview the user database or membership provider configuration to identify users assigned to the Edit Mode role or permission levelAffected if There are users with Edit Mode privileges configured in the system
-
Check role mapping between Edit Mode and WebAdminsExamine the role and permission configuration in the web.config or EPiServer admin interface to see if Edit Mode users can be mapped to or inherit WebAdmins access rightsAffected if Edit Mode privileges can be combined with the Forms Authentication configuration to potentially escalate to WebAdmins access
A system is affected if it runs a vulnerable EPiServer CMS version (5.x through 6.1.379.0), uses Forms Authentication, and contains users with Edit Mode privileges in a configuration where privilege escalation to WebAdmins is possible.
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 dataReview Forms Authentication configuration settings and user role mappings; apply vendor security patches; limit Edit Mode privileges to only trusted users.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-1031 — 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-2012-1031 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