CVE-2016-1170
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 the Casebook plugin before 0.9.4 for baserCMS allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators.
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 confidenceCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the Casebook plugin before version 0.9.4 for baserCMS allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators by tricking authenticated users into submitting malicious requests.
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<= 0.9.3CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 the Casebook plugin installationNavigate to the baserCMS /app/Plugin directory and check for a 'Casebook' or 'Case' folder. In baserCMS, plugins are typically stored in the Plugin directory under the app folder.Affected if The Casebook plugin folder exists in the baserCMS installation
-
Identify the installed Casebook plugin versionWithin the Casebook plugin folder, look for a version file such as version.php, or check the plugin's config file (like plugin.php or VERSION) which typically contains the version number. Alternatively, check the main controller file for a version constant.Affected if The version is 0.9.3 or lower, or no version information is found indicating an old installation
-
Verify CSRF protection on administrative formsInspect the Casebook plugin's controller files (particularly admin controllers) for state-changing actions like add, edit, delete. Check if these action methods include CSRF token validation using baserCMS's $this->Security->csrfCheck or similar validation mechanisms.Affected if The plugin lacks CSRF token validation in its administrative action methods
If the Casebook plugin is installed and its version is 0.9.3 or lower without CSRF token validation implemented, the environment is vulnerable to CVE-2016-1170.
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 the Casebook plugin to version 0.9.4 or later which includes proper CSRF token validation, or implement anti-CSRF tokens on all state-changing forms and validate them server-side.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-1170 — 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-2016-1170 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