CVE-2015-2759
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 · uneditedMultiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in the ePO extension in McAfee Data Loss Prevention Endpoint (DLPe) before 9.3 Patch 4 Hotfix 16 (9.3.416.4) allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of users for requests that (1) obtain sensitive information or (2) modify the database via unspecified vectors.
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 confidenceCSRF vulnerabilities in the McAfee DLPe ePO extension allow remote attackers to perform actions on behalf of authenticated users, potentially exposing sensitive information or modifying the database by tricking users into visiting malicious pages while logged into the ePO console.
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<= 9.3.400CVSS 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.
-
Identify DLPe version in ePO consoleLog into the ePO console and navigate to the McAfee Data Loss Prevention Endpoint extension details. Look for the extension version information typically found under Menu > Extensions > McAfee > DLPe or similar path depending on ePO version.Affected if The displayed DLPe ePO extension version is 9.3.400 or lower.
-
Check endpoint DLPe client versionFrom the ePO console, go to the System Tree or My Organization view and check the installed McAfee Data Loss Prevention Endpoint client version on managed systems.Affected if The endpoint client version is 9.3.400 or lower.
-
Verify ePO console accessConfirm the ePO web console is accessible and operational. CSRF attacks require the ePO console to be reachable over HTTP/HTTPS.Affected if The ePO console is accessible and the DLPe extension version cannot be determined or shows version 9.3.400 or below.
-
Check extension manifestOn the ePO server, locate the DLPe extension package files. The extension version is often documented in manifest.xml or similar metadata files within the extension package directory.Affected if The extension manifest shows version 9.3.400 or lower.
You are affected if the McAfee Data Loss Prevention Endpoint extension or client version is 9.3.400 or lower and the ePO console is in use.
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 McAfee Data Loss Prevention Endpoint to version 9.3.416.4 or later, which contains the patch for this vulnerability.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $3,392.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-2759 — 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-2015-2759 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