Debian LinuxOperating system · Debian
CVE-2014-2327
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 Cacti 0.8.7g, 0.8.8b, and earlier allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of users for unspecified commands, as demonstrated by requests that (1) modify binary files, (2) modify configurations, or (3) add arbitrary users.
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 confidenceCSRF vulnerability in Cacti allows remote attackers to hijack authenticated user sessions to execute unauthorized commands, including modifying binary files, altering configurations, and adding arbitrary users. The lack of anti-CSRF tokens or referrer validation in the application allows attackers to craft malicious requests that browsers automatically include with valid session cookies.
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
Debian LinuxOperating system
= 7.0= 8.0>= 0.8.7, <= 0.8.7g>= 0.8.8, <= 0.8.8b= 13.1= 13.2CVSS 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.
-
Locate Cacti installationCheck for Cacti web application files in common web server directories (e.g., /var/www/html/cacti, /usr/share/cacti, or the web root). Also check if Cacti is running by accessing the web interface.Affected if Cacti is not found on the system - the system is not affected.
-
Identify Cacti versionAccess the Cacti web interface and navigate to 'Console' > 'About Cacti' or check the version.php file in the Cacti installation directory (look for $cacti_version variable).Affected if Cannot determine version - further investigation required.
-
Compare installed version to affected rangesCompare the identified version against: 0.8.7 through 0.8.7g, or 0.8.8 through 0.8.8b.Affected if Version falls within 0.8.7 to 0.8.7g OR 0.8.8 to 0.8.8b - the system is likely affected.
-
Check underlying OS versionRun 'cat /etc/os-release' or 'lsb_release -a' to identify the operating system.Affected if Running Debian 7.0, Debian 8.0, Opensuse 13.1, or Opensuse 13.2 with a matching Cacti version - the system is affected.
The system is affected if Cacti is installed and the version is between 0.8.7 and 0.8.7g inclusive, or between 0.8.8 and 0.8.8b inclusive.
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 for all state-changing operations (forms and AJAX endpoints) and validate request origin/referer headers. This is a standard web application security control.
Fix this in Debian Linux
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $9,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-2327 — 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-2014-2327 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