CVE-2012-4893
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 file/show.cgi in Webmin 1.590 and earlier allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of privileged users for requests that (1) read files or execute (2) tar, (3) zip, or (4) gzip commands, a different issue than CVE-2012-2982.
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 confidenceCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Webmin's file/show.cgi allows remote attackers to hijack authenticated privileged user sessions to read arbitrary files or execute tar, zip, and gzip commands. The lack of anti-CSRF tokens in the affected form submissions enables malicious requests to be triggered via tricking authenticated users into visiting attacker-controlled pages.
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<= 1.590= 1.140= 1.150= 1.160= 1.170= 1.180= 1.200= 1.210= 1.220= 1.230= 1.240= 1.260CVSS 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 Webmin installation and versionCheck the Webmin version by looking for a version file in the installation directory, or access the Webmin login page and check for version information in the footer or error messages. Common paths include /usr/libexec/webmin/, /opt/webmin/, or /etc/webmin/. On Gentoo, check /var/lib/webmin or via 'emerge -s webmin'.Affected if The installed version matches any of: 1.140, 1.150, 1.160, 1.170, 1.180, 1.200, 1.210, 1.220, 1.230, 1.240, 1.260, or is <= 1.590 on Gentoo.
-
Locate file/show.cgi scriptFind the file/show.cgi script in the Webmin installation directory. Common paths: /usr/libexec/webmin/file/show.cgi, /etc/webmin/file/show.cgi, or within the webmin file manager module directory. Use 'find' command: find / -name 'show.cgi' -path '*/file/*' 2>/dev/null.Affected if The file/show.cgi script exists in the Webmin installation and is executable by the web server user.
-
Verify File Manager module is accessibleAttempt to access the Webmin File Manager interface via web browser at /file/show.cgi or through the Webmin UI under the 'Others' or 'File Manager' category. Check if the module is enabled in Webmin configuration.Affected if The File Manager module is enabled and accessible to authenticated privileged users without requiring additional authentication layers.
-
Check for anti-CSRF tokens in form submissionsLog into Webmin as a privileged user, navigate to the File Manager, and view the page source (right-click > View Page Source). Search for form tags submitting to file/show.cgi and check if they contain a hidden input field with a token value that changes per session. Look for fields like 'token', 'csrf', or 'sid' that are validated server-side.Affected if The form submissions to file/show.cgi lack anti-CSRF tokens (synchronizer tokens) in the HTML source, or the same token value is reused across sessions.
-
Inspect session cookie configurationLog into Webmin and inspect the session cookie set by the server. Use browser developer tools (Application > Cookies) or curl to examine Set-Cookie headers. Check if the cookie has SameSite, Secure, and HttpOnly attributes set.Affected if Session cookies lack SameSite=Strict or SameSite=Lax attributes, making them vulnerable to being sent on cross-site requests.
A user is affected if they have a vulnerable Gentoo Webmin version (1.140-1.260 or <=1.590) with the File Manager module enabled and accessible, and the file/show.cgi forms lack 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 (synchronizer token pattern) for all state-changing operations in file/show.cgi, validate the Origin/Referer headers server-side, and apply SameSite cookie attributes. Upgrade to a patched Webmin version if available.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-4893 — 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-2012-4893 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