CVE-2012-1037
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 · uneditedPHP remote file inclusion vulnerability in front/popup.php in GLPI 0.78 through 0.80.61 allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary PHP code via a URL in the sub_type parameter.
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 confidenceA remote file inclusion vulnerability in GLPI's front/popup.php allows authenticated remote attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code by supplying a malicious URL in the sub_type parameter. The application directly includes files based on user input without proper validation, enabling attackers to include and execute remote PHP files.
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= 0.78= 0.78.1= 0.78.2= 0.78.3= 0.78.4= 0.78.5= 0.80= 0.80.1= 0.80.2= 0.80.3= 0.80.4= 0.80.5CVSS 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
- Low
- Authentication
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/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 GLPI installation versionLocate the GLPI installation directory and check the version number, typically found in a version file, setup file, or the GLPI root directory. Common version files include version.php, or the version may be displayed in the application's footer or about page.Affected if The installed version matches 0.78, 0.78.1, 0.78.2, 0.78.3, 0.78.4, 0.78.5, 0.80, 0.80.1, 0.80.2, 0.80.3, 0.80.4, or 0.80.5.
-
Locate the vulnerable popup.php fileCheck for the presence of the file 'front/popup.php' within the GLPI web installation directory.Affected if The file front/popup.php exists in the GLPI installation.
-
Verify sub_type parameter handlingExamine the front/popup.php source code to confirm that it uses the sub_type parameter in a file inclusion operation without proper validation. Look for include, require, or similar functions using the sub_type parameter directly from user input.Affected if The code directly uses the sub_type parameter in include/require statements without sanitization.
-
Confirm authentication requirementsDetermine whether the popup.php endpoint is accessible without authentication or if it requires valid user credentials. Check the authentication enforcement mechanisms in the application or web server configuration.Affected if The popup.php endpoint is accessible to authenticated users, meaning any authenticated user can potentially exploit the RFI vulnerability.
If GLPI version is between 0.78 and 0.80.5 inclusive, the front/popup.php file exists, and the sub_type parameter is processed without validation, the environment is affected by this remote file inclusion vulnerability.
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 GLPI to version 0.80.62 or later which includes patched code to properly validate the sub_type parameter. If patching is not possible immediately, restrict access to authenticated users and implement web application firewall rules to block suspicious patterns in the sub_type parameter.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-1037 — 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-2012-1037 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