CVE-2015-0905
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 bBlog allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of 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 · moderate confidenceCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in bBlog allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users by tricking authenticated users into submitting malicious requests.
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 dataall versionsCVSS 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.
-
Confirm bBlog installationIdentify if the bBlog application is present in the environment by checking web server directories for bBlog files, or by accessing the application's admin/login pages and examining the page source for bBlog identifiers.Affected if bBlog is found to be running in the environment.
-
Inspect forms for anti-CSRF tokensExamine the HTML source of state-changing forms (e.g., login, post creation, comment submission, admin settings) in bBlog. Look for hidden input fields containing token values, or check if forms include token parameters in their action URLs.Affected if No anti-CSRF token fields are present in the forms, or tokens are missing from form submissions.
-
Check session cookie configurationInspect the Set-Cookie headers or session cookie configuration in bBlog. Look for the SameSite attribute on session cookies, or check if cookies are configured with the Secure flag.Affected if Session cookies lack the SameSite attribute or proper security flags.
-
Verify request origin validationExamine bBlog's server-side code or configuration to determine if incoming requests validate the Origin or Referer headers before processing state-changing operations.Affected if No Origin or Referer header validation is implemented in the application.
-
Test token presence on state operationsSubmit a state-changing request (such as creating a post or changing a setting) without the expected anti-CSRF token and observe whether the operation succeeds or is rejected.Affected if Requests without anti-CSRF tokens are accepted and processed successfully.
If bBlog is installed and the application lacks anti-CSRF tokens in forms, SameSite cookie protections, and Origin/Referer validation, the environment is affected by this CVE.
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 and validate the request origin using SameSite cookies or Referer/Origin header checks.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-0905 — 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-2015-0905 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