CVE-2014-8360
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 · uneditedDirectory traversal vulnerability in inc/autoload.function.php in GLPI before 0.84.8 allows remote attackers to include and execute arbitrary local files via a .._ (dot dot underscore) in an item type to the getItemForItemtype, as demonstrated by the itemtype parameter in ajax/common.tabs.php.
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 confidenceDirectory traversal vulnerability in GLPI's autoload.function.php allows remote attackers to include and execute arbitrary local files via a '.._' (dot dot underscore) sequence in the itemtype parameter passed to getItemForItemtype, enabling potential remote code execution.
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<= 0.84.7CVSS 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
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/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 GLPI version installedLocate the GLPI version file (commonly version.php or config.php in the config directory) and read the version number defined thereAffected if Version is 0.84.7 or lower
-
Verify vulnerable autoload.function.php existsCheck if the file autoload.function.php exists in the GLPI inc/ or includes/ directoryAffected if The file exists and the GLPI version is 0.84.7 or lower
-
Inspect the getItemForItemtype functionOpen autoload.function.php and locate the getItemForItemtype function to see if it directly uses the itemtype parameter without sanitizationAffected if The function uses the itemtype parameter without filtering out '.._' sequences or directory traversal patterns
-
Test the itemtype parameter for directory traversalIf the application is accessible, send a request with itemtype=.._/../../../../etc/passwd (or similar path) to the getItemForItemtype function endpoint to see if file contents are returnedAffected if The application returns contents of files outside the GLPI directory structure
-
Review web server logs for exploitation attemptsCheck web server access logs for requests containing '.._' sequences in itemtype parameter to see if exploitation has been attemptedAffected if Suspicious traversal sequences appear in logs targeting the autoload functionality
A GLPI installation is affected if it is version 0.84.7 or lower AND the autoload.function.php file exists with the vulnerable getItemForItemtype function that does not sanitize directory traversal sequences in the itemtype parameter.
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 GLPI to version 0.84.8 or later to obtain the patched autoload.function.php that properly sanitizes the itemtype parameter against directory traversal sequences.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $3,840.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-8360 — 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-2014-8360 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