CVE-2016-7507
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 GLPI 0.90.4 allows remote authenticated attackers to submit a request that could lead to the creation of an admin account in the application.
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 GLPI 0.90.4 allows remote authenticated attackers to forge requests that result in the creation of unauthorized admin accounts. The application lacks proper anti-CSRF token validation on the account creation functionality, enabling attackers to trick authenticated users into unknowingly creating admin accounts.
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= 0.90.4CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Identify installed GLPI versionLocate the GLPI version information typically found in the application's footer, about page, or configuration files (such as version.php or config_db.php in the inc/ directory)Affected if The installed version is exactly 0.90.4
-
Verify account creation endpoint lacks CSRF protectionExamine the source code or HTTP responses of the user/account creation form (typically found in front/user.form.php or similar user management endpoints) to determine whether a CSRF token parameter is present and validatedAffected if The account creation form does not include a valid anti-CSRF token (such as a _glpi_token or similar token parameter) in the request
-
Check if session token validation existsReview the server-side code handling account creation requests to verify whether session-based token validation is performed before processing the requestAffected if The account creation handler does not validate a synchronizer token pattern before creating administrative accounts
-
Inspect HTTP request headers for origin validationAnalyze whether the application validates Origin or Referer headers on state-changing requests like account creationAffected if The application does not validate the Origin or Referer headers on account creation requests
A defender is affected if their GLPI installation is version 0.90.4 AND the account creation functionality is missing proper anti-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 (synchronizer token pattern) on all state-changing forms, particularly account creation endpoints, and validate the Origin/Referer headers for additional protection.
- Consultation4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-7507 — 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-2016-7507 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