CVE-2015-3235
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 · uneditedForeman before 1.9.0 allows remote authenticated users with the edit_users permission to edit administrator users and change their passwords 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 · high confidenceForeman before 1.9.0 contains an authorization flaw where users granted only the edit_users permission can modify administrator accounts and change their passwords, enabling privilege escalation from a standard user management role to full administrative control.
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<= 1.8.2CVSS 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
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:S/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 Foreman installation and versionLocate the installed Foreman version by checking the package manager (rpm -q foreman, dpkg -l foreman) or the About page in the Foreman web UI under Administer > About. Compare the version number against the affected range.Affected if The installed version is 1.8.2 or earlier (any version <= 1.8.2).
-
Verify edit_users permission existsAccess the Foreman web UI and navigate to Administer > Roles to view available permissions. Confirm whether the edit_users permission is defined in the permission set.Affected if The edit_users permission exists and is available for assignment to roles.
-
Review role assignments for edit_usersNavigate to Administer > Users > select a user > tab to view their assigned roles. Alternatively, go to Administer > Roles and inspect each role's permission set to identify which roles include edit_users.Affected if Any user account (other than built-in administrators) is assigned a role that includes the edit_users permission.
-
Identify administrator accounts presentIn the Foreman web UI, go to Administer > Users and review the list of user accounts. Check which accounts have the Administrator flag enabled or are assigned roles with full admin privileges.Affected if There are administrator-level accounts in the system that could be modified by a user possessing only edit_users permission.
You are affected if your Foreman installation is version 1.8.2 or earlier AND non-administrative users have been granted the edit_users permission, allowing them to modify administrator accounts.
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 to Foreman 1.9.0 or later to obtain the patched version. As an interim measure, restrict the edit_users permission to only trusted administrators and audit existing role assignments.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-3235 — 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-2015-3235 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