MoodleCMS
CVE-2012-6104
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 · uneditedblog/rsslib.php in Moodle 2.2.x before 2.2.7, 2.3.x before 2.3.4, and 2.4.x before 2.4.1 allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information from site-level blogs by leveraging the guest role and reading an RSS feed.
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 confidenceThe blog/rsslib.php component in Moodle versions 2.2.x before 2.2.7, 2.3.x before 2.3.4, and 2.4.x before 2.4.1 fails to properly restrict access to site-level blog content delivered via RSS feeds. Users with the guest role (typically the lowest-privilege role) can read RSS feeds containing sensitive information from site-level blogs that should be restricted from unauthenticated or low-privilege access.
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
= 2.2.0= 2.2.1= 2.2.2= 2.2.3= 2.2.4= 2.2.5= 2.2.6= 2.3.0= 2.3.1= 2.3.2= 2.3.3= 2.4.0CVSS 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
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
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 installed Moodle versionNavigate to Site Administration > Server > Environment or view the version.php file in the Moodle root directory (search for $version variable).Affected if The installed version is 2.2.0 through 2.2.6, 2.3.0 through 2.3.3, or 2.4.0.
-
Verify blog/rsslib.php file existsCheck if the file /blog/rsslib.php exists in the Moodle installation directory.Affected if The file exists and the Moodle version falls within the affected ranges.
-
Confirm guest role has access to RSS feedsNavigate to Site Administration > Users > Permissions > Define roles, locate the guest role, and verify permissions for the blog/rsslib:canaccess capability or similar blog access capabilities.Affected if Guest users are assigned the guest role and can access RSS feed functionality.
-
Test RSS feed access with guest accountLog in as a guest user (or use a fresh browser session without authentication) and attempt to access the site-level blog RSS feed at /blog/rsslib.php?blogid=0 or similar RSS endpoint.Affected if Guest users can view site-level blog content via RSS feeds that should be restricted.
You are affected if your Moodle version is 2.2.0-2.2.6, 2.3.0-2.3.3, or 2.4.0 AND the guest role can access site-level blog RSS feeds containing sensitive information.
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 2.2.7, 2.3.4, 2.4.1 or later. Additionally, review and restrict the guest role permissions to prevent access to sensitive blog content until the upgrade is applied.
Fix this in Moodle
Scoped from the published advisory
- 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-2012-6104 — 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-2012-6104 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