CVE-2012-1828
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 · uneditedThe administrative functions in AutoFORM PDM Archive before 7.1 do not have authorization requirements, which allows remote authenticated users to perform administrative actions by leveraging knowledge of a hidden function, as demonstrated by the password-change function.
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 confidenceAutoFORM PDM Archive versions before 7.1 contain a broken access control vulnerability where administrative functions lack proper authorization checks. Authenticated users can access hidden administrative functions (such as password change) without proper privilege validation, allowing privilege escalation within the application.
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<= 7.0= 6.920CVSS 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 the installed AutoFORM PDM Archive versionCheck the application version through the product's About dialog, installation directory metadata, or version information file shipped with the software. Compare the version number against the affected ranges: versions <= 7.0 or exactly 6.920.Affected if The installed version is 7.0 or lower, or exactly version 6.920.
-
Verify if administrative functions enforce authorizationLog in as a standard authenticated user (non-administrator) and attempt to access administrative functions such as password change, user management, or system configuration pages. Observe whether the application denies access or allows the action without proper privilege validation.Affected if Standard authenticated users can access or execute administrative functions without receiving an authorization error.
-
Check for hidden administrative endpoints or modulesInspect the application's web interface, API endpoints, or navigation structure for undocumented or hidden administrative URLs, buttons, or menu items that should not be accessible to regular users. Attempt to access these as a standard user.Affected if Hidden administrative functions are accessible to authenticated users without elevated privileges.
-
Confirm role-based access control implementationReview the application's security configuration or settings to determine if role-based access control (RBAC) is properly implemented and enforced on all administrative functions.Affected if RBAC is missing, disabled, or not enforced on administrative functions.
A user is affected if they are running AutoFORM PDM Archive version 7.0 or lower, and standard authenticated users can access administrative functions without proper authorization checks.
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 role-based access control (RBAC) and enforce authorization checks on all administrative functions. Upgrade to version 7.1 or later which addresses the missing authorization requirements.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 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 $7,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-1828 — 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-2012-1828 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