CVE-2015-4530
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 EMC Documentum WebTop before 6.8P01, Documentum Administrator through 7.2, Documentum Digital Assets Manager through 6.5SP6, Documentum Web Publishers through 6.5SP7, and Documentum Task Space through 6.7SP2 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users. NOTE: this vulnerability exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2014-2518.
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 confidenceCSRF vulnerability in EMC Documentum products allows remote attackers to hijack user authentication by tricking authenticated users into submitting malicious requests. This is a regression from an incomplete fix for CVE-2014-2518, indicating the original CSRF protection was not comprehensively applied across all vulnerable endpoints.
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<= 7.2<= 6.5<= 6.7<= 6.5<= 6.8CVSS 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 installed Documentum product and versionLocate the product version through the application web interface (typically in About/Help section) or check the installed software inventory on the serverAffected if The product is one of: Documentum Administrator (7.2 or lower), Digital Asset Manager (6.5 or lower), Taskspace (6.7 or lower), Web Publisher (6.5 or lower), or Webtop (6.8 or lower)
-
Verify CSRF token presence on state-changing formsReview the HTML source of forms that perform actions (create, update, delete operations) and check if a CSRF token or anti-CSRF parameter is included in each form submissionAffected if Forms handling state-changing operations lack anti-CSRF tokens or use predictable token values
-
Check SameSite cookie configurationInspect the HTTP response headers for session cookies and verify if SameSite attribute is set to Strict or LaxAffected if Session cookies lack SameSite attribute or are set to None without Secure flag
-
Compare endpoint coverage to CVE-2014-2518 fixAudit all application endpoints that modify state (POST/PUT/DELETE requests) and verify each has CSRF protection, noting this is a regression indicating incomplete coverage from the prior fixAffected if Some state-changing endpoints remain unprotected while others were fixed for the earlier CVE
A user is affected if they run any of the listed Documentum products within the specified version ranges AND certain form submissions or endpoints lack proper CSRF token validation.
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 on all state-changing forms and verify SameSite cookie attributes are properly set. Conduct a thorough audit to ensure all endpoints are protected, not just those addressed in the prior CVE fix.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-4530 — 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-2015-4530 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