CVE-2012-2564
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 · uneditedMultiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in the administrative interface in Bloxx Web Filtering before 5.0.14 allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that perform administrative actions.
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 confidenceThis is a CSRF (Cross-Site Request Forgery) vulnerability in the administrative web interface of Bloxx Web Filtering versions prior to 5.0.14. The vulnerability allows remote attackers to trick authenticated administrators into performing unintended administrative actions by crafting malicious requests that the victim's browser automatically submits due to lack of proper CSRF protection tokens.
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<= 5.0.13CVSS 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 Bloxx Web Filtering installationLocate the Bloxx Web Filtering application or appliance in your environment. Check system documentation, installed software lists, or network inventory for Bloxx Web Filtering devices. Note the hostname or IP address of the filtering appliance.Affected if Bloxx Web Filtering is not found in your environment, you are not affected.
-
Determine installed versionAccess the administrative web interface of the Bloxx device (typically via HTTPS on port 443 or 8080). Log in as an administrator and navigate to the system information, about, or status page to find the exact version number. Alternatively, check the appliance's command-line interface or system files for the version.Affected if The version is 5.0.13 or lower, indicating a vulnerable version.
-
Verify version is within affected rangeCompare your identified version against the affected range: versions prior to 5.0.14 (specifically <= 5.0.13). Record whether your version falls within this range.Affected if Your installed version is 5.0.13 or any version lower than 5.0.14.
-
Confirm administrative web interface is accessibleDetermine if the Bloxx administrative web interface is reachable on your network. Check if TCP ports used for admin access (commonly 443, 8443, or 8080) are open and accessible from network segments where users operate.Affected if The admin interface is exposed and the version is <= 5.0.13, you are affected by this CSRF vulnerability.
You are affected if Bloxx Web Filtering version 5.0.13 or lower is installed and its administrative web interface is accessible, as these versions lack CSRF token protection on administrative forms.
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 (synchronizer token pattern) on all administrative forms and validate the CSRF token on every state-changing POST request. Additionally, enable SameSite cookie attributes and validate the Referer header as defense-in-depth.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-2564 — 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-2012-2564 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