CVE-2015-7317
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 · uneditedKupu 3.3.0 through 3.3.6, 4.0.0 through 4.0.10, 4.1.0 through 4.1.6, and 4.2.0 through 4.2.7 allows remote authenticated users to edit Kupu settings.
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 confidenceKupu, a WYSIWYG editor, has a broken access control vulnerability in versions 3.3.0-3.3.6, 4.0.0-4.0.10, 4.1.0-4.1.6, and 4.2.0-4.2.7 that allows any authenticated user to modify Kupu settings without proper authorization checks. This is a privilege escalation issue where the application fails to verify that the authenticated user has permission to access the settings modification functionality.
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<= 1.4.16= 3.3= 3.3.1= 3.3.2= 3.3.3= 3.3.4= 3.3.5= 3.3.6= 4.0= 4.0.1= 4.0.2= 4.0.3= 4.0.4CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
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.
-
Check if Kupu is installedLocate the kupu package in your Python environment or Plone instance. Common locations include the eggs directory, products folder, or site-packages. Use commands like 'pip show kupu' or inspect your Plone buildout configuration files.Affected if The kupu package exists in your environment
-
Determine installed Kupu versionQuery the installed kupu package version using pip ('pip show kupu'), import it in Python ('import kupu; print(kupu.__version__)'), or check version metadata in your Plone buildout or setup.py.Affected if Version falls within 3.3.0-3.3.6, 4.0.0-4.0.10, 4.1.0-4.1.6, 4.2.0-4.2.7, or is <=1.4.16
-
Check Plone version if applicableIf running Plone, identify the installed Plone version by checking your buildout.cfg, versions.cfg, or using the Plone control panel. Look for versions 3.3.x or 4.0.x.Affected if Plone versions 3.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.5, 3.3.6, 4.0, 4.0.1, 4.0.2, 4.0.3, or 4.0.4 are installed with Kupu
-
Verify Kupu is the active WYSIWYG editorCheck your Plone or CMS configuration to confirm Kupu is enabled as the WYSIWYG editor. Inspect the rich text editor configuration in site settings or the portal_properties/tool settings.Affected if Kupu is configured as the active WYSIWYG editor in your CMS
You are affected if Kupu is installed and enabled with a vulnerable version (3.3.0-3.3.6, 4.0.0-4.0.10, 4.1.0-4.1.6, 4.2.0-4.2.7, or <=1.4.16) or if you run Plone 3.3.x or 4.0.x with Kupu as the editor, as any authenticated user could modify Kupu settings without proper authorization.
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 dataUpdate to a patched version of Kupu. If no update is available, implement application-level access controls to restrict settings modification to only privileged users.
- Consultation3.0 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 $4,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-7317 — 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-2015-7317 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