CVE-2015-5660
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 eXtplorer before 2.1.8 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests that execute PHP code.
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 eXtplorer before version 2.1.8 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users by tricking them into submitting malicious requests that execute arbitrary PHP code on the server.
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<= 2.1.7CVSS 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.
-
Locate eXtplorer installationSearch for directories containing 'extplorer' or 'eXtplorer' in the web root. Common paths include /extplorer/, /administrator/components/com_extplorer/, or /wp-content/plugins/eXtplorer/. Check for files like extplorer.php, footer.php, or version.php.Affected if eXtplorer is found on the system and the version is 2.1.7 or lower
-
Identify the installed versionOpen the main Extplorer file (such as version.php, about.php, or the main extplorer.php) and locate the version string. It typically appears as a variable like $version = '2.1.7' or similar.Affected if The version is 2.1.7 or any version lower than 2.1.8
-
Check for CSRF token validation in sensitive operationsExamine the file handling the admin actions (such as admin.php, action.php, or files named with 'action' in the /libraries/ or /src/ directory). Look for presence of token validation code - search for 'token', 'csrf', or 'validateToken' functions before executing sensitive file operations.Affected if No CSRF token validation is found in the action handling code, or the code lacks token checks before PHP code execution operations
-
Verify if admin interface is accessible without additional authenticationAttempt to access the Extplorer administrative interface directly. Check if the /admin.php, /admin.extplorer.php, or the main extplorer.php with admin parameters is reachable and allows operations without a secondary CSRF token being required.Affected if The admin interface or file management operations execute without requiring a unique CSRF token per request
The environment is affected if eXtplorer (any version <= 2.1.7) is installed and the code lacks CSRF token validation for sensitive operations that can execute arbitrary PHP code.
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 eXtplorer to version 2.1.8 or later which includes CSRF token validation for sensitive operations.
- Consultation2.0 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 $4,480.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-5660 — 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-2015-5660 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