CVE-2012-4568
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 LetoDMS (formerly MyDMS) before 3.3.8 allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims via unknown vectors.
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 confidenceMultiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities exist in LetoDMS (formerly MyDMS) prior to version 3.3.8. These flaws allow remote attackers to trick authenticated users into unknowingly executing unwanted actions by sending malicious requests to the document management system, effectively hijacking their session credentials.
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<= 3.3.7CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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.
-
Locate LetoDMS installation and determine versionCheck the version file (typically version.inc or similar in the install directory) or access the admin/about page in the web interface to identify the installed LetoDMS versionAffected if The installed version is 3.3.7 or any earlier version (3.3.0 through 3.3.7)
-
Verify LetoDMS is accessible over networkConfirm the LetoDMS web application is running and reachable at its expected URLAffected if The application is exposed and accessible to users who could receive malicious CSRF links
-
Check for anti-CSRF token implementation in formsInspect the HTML source of state-changing forms (such as document upload, folder creation, user management) and look for hidden input fields containing token values or similar CSRF protection mechanismsAffected if State-changing forms lack CSRF token fields and the installed version is 3.3.7 or earlier
-
Review session cookie configurationExamine the session cookie settings (check headers via browser dev tools or server configuration) to determine if SameSite attribute is setAffected if SameSite cookie attribute is not set to Strict or Lax and the version is 3.3.7 or earlier (lack of this attribute increases CSRF exploitability)
A user is affected if LetoDMS version 3.3.7 or lower is installed and the application processes state-changing requests from authenticated users without CSRF token validation.
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 to LetoDMS version 3.3.8 or later which contains the CSRF fixes. Additionally, implement anti-CSRF tokens on all state-changing forms and use SameSite cookie attributes as a defense-in-depth measure.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-4568 — 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-2012-4568 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