MoodleCMS
CVE-2016-2153
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 scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the advanced-search feature in mod_data in Moodle through 2.6.11, 2.7.x before 2.7.13, 2.8.x before 2.8.11, 2.9.x before 2.9.5, and 3.0.x before 3.0.3 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted field in a URL, as demonstrated by a search form field.
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 confidenceCross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Moodle's mod_data module advanced-search feature allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via crafted search form field parameters in URLs.
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
MoodleCMS
<= 2.6.11= 2.7.0= 2.7.1= 2.7.2= 2.7.3= 2.7.4= 2.7.5= 2.7.6= 2.7.7= 2.7.8= 2.7.9= 2.7.10CVSS 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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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.
-
Identify your Moodle installation versionCheck the version.php file in your Moodle root directory, or access the Site Administration > Server > Environment page to see the installed Moodle version.Affected if The installed version is 2.6.11 or lower, or falls within 2.7.0 to 2.7.10.
-
Confirm the mod_data module is presentVerify the mod/data directory exists in your Moodle installation under /mod/data/ and contains the module files.Affected if The mod_data module is installed on the Moodle site.
-
Check if the Data activity module is in useInspect your Moodle database for courses using the mod_data module: look in the mdl_modules table for entries where name='data', or check if any course has a Data activity enabled.Affected if The Data activity module is enabled or has been used in any course on the site.
-
Verify advanced-search functionality is accessibleAttempt to access the mod_data search interface via a URL such as /mod/data/view.php?d=1&search=1, or check the mod/data/lib.php for the presence of search-related functions.Affected if The mod_data module's search functionality is accessible to users on the site.
You are affected if your Moodle version falls within <=2.6.11 or 2.7.0-2.7.10 AND the mod_data module with its advanced-search feature is installed and accessible on your site.
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 Moodle to version 2.7.13, 2.8.11, 2.9.5, 3.0.3 or later, or apply the specific security patch for mod_data to properly sanitize search form input.
Fix this in Moodle
Scoped from the published advisory
- 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-2016-2153 — 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-2016-2153 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