CVE-2013-5937
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 · uneditedCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the Click2Sell Suite module 6.x-1.x for Drupal allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that delete database information via vectors involving the Drupal Form API.
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 the Click2Sell Suite Drupal module (6.x-1.x) allows remote attackers to trick authenticated administrators into unknowingly executing delete database operations through maliciously crafted requests, exploiting the lack of anti-CSRF tokens in Drupal Form API forms.
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.x-1.0CVSS 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
- 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.
-
Check if Click2Sell Suite module is installedNavigate to Drupal admin panel at admin/build/modules or run: drush pm-list --status=enabled | grep -i click2sellAffected if Click2Sell Suite module appears in the list of enabled modules
-
Identify the installed version of Click2Sell SuiteCheck the module's .info file at sites/all/modules/click2sell/click2sell.info or look at the version column in Drupal's modules page (admin/build/modules)Affected if Version displayed is 6.x-1.0 exactly
-
Locate delete-related form definitions in the moduleExamine the module file (click2sell.module) for form definitions containing 'delete' in the form_id or form builder function names, typically functions using drupal_get_form for delete confirmationsAffected if Delete forms are defined in the module without form_token elements
-
Verify absence of form_token in delete confirmation formsOpen the delete confirmation form builder function in the module file and check if $form['form_token'] or form_token is included in the form arrayAffected if The delete forms lack form_token validation tokens in their form array definition
-
Confirm delete operations execute database queriesSearch the module for SQL DELETE statements (db_query, db_delete, or db_delete()) within delete handler functionsAffected if The module contains delete database operations reachable through the unprotected forms
A user is affected if the Click2Sell Suite module version 6.x-1.0 is installed and delete-related forms lack form_token validation, allowing CSRF attacks to trigger database deletion operations.
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 Drupal Form API token validation (form_token) on all delete-related forms in the Click2Sell Suite module to ensure requests originate from legitimate admin sessions.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-5937 — 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-2013-5937 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