CVE-2012-1921
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 goform/admin/formWlEncrypt in Sitecom WLM-2501 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that change the router passphrase via the pskValue 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 confidenceCSRF vulnerability in Sitecom WLM-2501 router's wireless encryption form (goform/admin/formWlEncrypt). An authenticated administrator visiting a malicious site can have their session hijacked to silently change the wireless passphrase via the pskValue parameter without their knowledge.
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 dataall versionsCVSS 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 the router model and firmware versionAccess the router's web interface (typically at 192.168.0.1 or 192.168.1.1) and check the status or system information page for the exact firmware version. Alternatively, check the device label or bottom of the unit for the model number WLM-2501.Affected if The device is a Sitecom WLM-2501 with any firmware version, as all versions are affected per the CVE.
-
Confirm the admin web interface is accessibleAttempt to access the router's administration panel at the typical URL (such as http://192.168.0.1 or http://192.168.1.1) and verify you can reach the login or status page.Affected if The admin web interface is accessible, which is required for the CSRF attack to target an authenticated administrator session.
-
Verify the wireless settings form existsAttempt to access the formWlEncrypt endpoint or navigate through the wireless settings section of the admin interface to locate the wireless encryption configuration page.Affected if The wireless encryption form (goform/admin/formWlEncrypt) is present and accessible without anti-CSRF protection.
-
Inspect the form for anti-CSRF protectionView the page source or intercept the HTTP response of the wireless encryption form and check if there is a hidden token, nonce, or security token included in the form submission.Affected if The form submission lacks anti-CSRF tokens, allowing an attacker to craft malicious requests that bypass CSRF protections.
You are affected if you are using a Sitecom WLM-2501 router with its admin web interface accessible and the wireless encryption 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 in form submissions; alternatively, restrict admin interface access to trusted networks only or upgrade to a supported firmware version if available.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-1921 — 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-2012-1921 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