CVE-2015-0968
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 · uneditedUnrestricted file upload vulnerability in admin/uploadImage.html in SearchBlox before 8.2 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code by uploading a file with an executable extension and the image/jpeg content type, a different vulnerability than CVE-2013-3590.
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 confidenceSearchBlox before version 8.2 contains an unrestricted file upload vulnerability in admin/uploadImage.html. The application validates only the Content-Type header (image/jpeg) but fails to validate the actual file extension or content, allowing remote attackers to upload executable files (e.g., .jsp, .php) with a forged MIME type, leading to 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<= 8.1CVSS 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.
-
Identify SearchBlox installationCheck for SearchBlox by looking for the search application, typically in the web root (e.g., /searchblox/, /SearchBlox/, or check for 'SearchBlox' branding in the UI). Inspect HTTP responses and page source for 'SearchBlox' references.Affected if SearchBlox software is present in the environment
-
Determine SearchBlox versionAccess the admin interface (admin/login.html) or check for version information in the application (often visible in the footer, in the admin panel, or via /admin/status.html). Compare the installed version to the affected range: versions 8.1 and below are vulnerable.Affected if The installed version is 8.1 or lower (any version below 8.2)
-
Verify uploadImage.html endpoint existsAttempt to access /admin/uploadImage.html (or /searchblox/admin/uploadImage.html) via HTTP request. A 200 or 403 response indicates the endpoint exists and may be accessible.Affected if The uploadImage.html file exists in the admin directory and is accessible via the web
-
Confirm upload directory is web-accessibleCheck the application's configuration or attempt to access typical upload paths (often /search/ or /uploads/ within the SearchBlox web root). Determine if uploaded files are stored within the webroot where they can be executed.Affected if Uploaded files are stored within the web-accessible directory structure and can be requested via HTTP
If SearchBlox version 8.1 or below is confirmed AND the admin/uploadImage.html endpoint is accessible AND uploaded files can be served from the webroot, the environment is affected by this unrestricted file upload vulnerability.
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 dataRestrict uploads by validating both file extensions via whitelist and performing actual file content analysis rather than trusting client-provided Content-Type headers. Store uploaded files outside the webroot or disable script execution in upload directories.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-0968 — 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-2015-0968 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