CVE-2013-3599
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 · unediteduserlogin.jsp in Coursemill Learning Management System (LMS) 6.6 and 6.8 allows remote attackers to gain privileges via a modified user-role value to home.html.
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 · moderate confidenceCoursemill LMS userlogin.jsp contains an insecure direct object reference (IDOR) vulnerability allowing remote attackers to modify the user-role parameter during authentication to gain elevated privileges and access restricted resources like home.html.
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= 6.6= 6.8CVSS 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
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
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 Coursemill LMS installationLocate Coursemill LMS installation directory or web application files (typically in webapps folder of application server)Affected if Coursemill LMS is present in the environment
-
Check installed versionExamine version files,about page,or application metadata to determine if version is 6.6 or 6.8Affected if Installed version equals 6.6 or 6.8 exactly
-
Locate vulnerable login fileFind userlogin.jsp in the deployed web application directoryAffected if userlogin.jsp exists and is accessible
-
Inspect login parameter handlingExamine userlogin.jsp source code for parameters handling user roles during authentication (such as role, userRole, or similar)Affected if The JSP accepts and processes a role parameter from client input without server-side validation
-
Test role parameter modificationSubmit a login request with modified role parameter (e.g., adding role=admin or role=instructor to the authentication request)Affected if The application accepts and applies the client-supplied role value without server-side verification
The environment is affected if Coursemill LMS versions 6.6 or 6.8 are installed and the userlogin.jsp accepts role parameters from client input without server-side 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 dataImplement server-side authorization checks and role validation on every request, ensuring user roles cannot be modified by客户端 input and are validated against the authenticated session.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,888.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-3599 — 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-2013-3599 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