MoodleCMS
CVE-2012-3392
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 · uneditedmod/forum/unsubscribeall.php in Moodle 2.1.x before 2.1.7 and 2.2.x before 2.2.4 does not consider whether a forum is optional, which allows remote authenticated users to bypass forum-subscription requirements by leveraging the student role and unsubscribing from all forums.
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 confidenceIn Moodle 2.1.x before 2.1.7 and 2.2.x before 2.2.4, the unsubscribeall.php script in the forum module fails to check whether a forum has optional subscription enabled. Authenticated students can unsubscribe from all forums, including those where subscription should be mandatory, bypassing institutional forum-subscription requirements.
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
MoodleCMS
= 2.1.0= 2.1.1= 2.1.2= 2.1.3= 2.1.4= 2.1.5= 2.1.6= 2.2.0= 2.2.1= 2.2.2= 2.2.3CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:S/C:N/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.
-
Check Moodle versionLog in as admin and go to Site Administration > Server > Environment, or look at the version.php file in the Moodle root directory (contains $release or $version variable)Affected if Version is 2.1.0 through 2.1.6 or 2.2.0 through 2.2.3
-
Verify forum module is installedNavigate to Site Administration > Plugins > Activity modules > Manage activities, or check if the mod/forum directory exists in the Moodle installationAffected if Forum module is installed and enabled
-
Identify forums with mandatory subscriptionGo to each course forum, access Forum administration > Subscription mode, or query the database table mdl_forum where forcesubscription = 1Affected if Any forums exist with forced/mandatory subscription (forcesubscription = 1)
-
Check unsubscribeall.php script behaviorAs a student, access /mod/forum/unsubscribeall.php in a course where the forum has mandatory subscription enabledAffected if Student can successfully unsubscribe from a forum that has forced subscription enabled
User is affected if running a Moodle version between 2.1.0-2.1.6 or 2.2.0-2.2.3 AND the forum module is active with mandatory subscription forums configured, allowing students to bypass subscription requirements.
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 Moodle to version 2.1.7 or later (2.1.x) or 2.2.4 or later (2.2.x). As a workaround, monitor forum subscription changes and re-enroll users in mandatory forums as needed.
Fix this in Moodle
Scoped from the published advisory
- 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-2012-3392 — 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-2012-3392 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