CVE-2013-4431
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 · uneditedMahara before 1.5.12, 1.6.x before 1.6.7, and 1.7.x before 1.7.3 does not properly prevent access to blocks, which allows remote authenticated users to modify arbitrary blocks via the bock id in an edit request.
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 confidenceMahara before 1.5.12, 1.6.x before 1.6.7, and 1.7.x before 1.7.3 contains an Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) vulnerability in its block editing functionality. The application fails to properly verify that the authenticated user owns or has permission to edit a specific block before processing edit requests, allowing attackers to modify arbitrary blocks by manipulating the block ID parameter.
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<= 1.5.11= 1.5= 1.5.0= 1.5.1= 1.5.2= 1.5.3= 1.5.4= 1.5.6= 1.5.7= 1.5.8= 1.5.9= 1.5.10CVSS 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.
-
Identify Mahara versionAccess the Mahara administration panel or check the version.php file in the htdocs directory to determine the installed Mahara versionAffected if Version is 1.5.11 or lower, any 1.5.x version, 1.6.x before 1.6.7, or 1.7.x before 1.7.3
-
Confirm block editing is enabledLog in as an authenticated user and navigate to a page with editable blocks to verify the block editing functionality is accessibleAffected if Block editing interface is available to users
-
Verify block ID parameter is directly usedInspect the block edit form or URL when editing a block to identify if the block ID is passed as a parameter without additional ownership verification tokensAffected if Block ID is submitted directly without cryptographically verified ownership confirmation
-
Check authorization logic in block edit handlerReview the server-side code handling block edit requests (typically in htdocs/auth/ldap or htdocs/lib/block.php depending on version) to confirm whether ownership or permission checks are performed before processing the editAffected if No explicit user-to-block ownership validation exists in the edit request handler
The environment is affected if Mahara version falls within the vulnerable ranges AND authenticated users can access block editing functionality where block IDs can be manipulated without ownership verification.
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 Mahara to version 1.5.12, 1.6.7, 1.7.3 or later, which implement proper authorization checks before allowing block edits.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $1,904.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-4431 — 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-2013-4431 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