PloneApplication

CVE-2017-1000481

MEDIUM · 6.1 CVSS v3.0 Published 2018-01-03
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
68/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges

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 · unedited
When you visit a page where you need to login, Plone 2.5-5.1rc1 sends you to the login form with a 'came_from' parameter set to the previous url. After you login, you get redirected to the page you tried to view before. An attacker might try to abuse this by letting you click on a specially crafted link. You would login, and get redirected to the site of the attacker, letting you think that you are still on the original Plone site. Or some javascript of the attacker could be executed. Most of these types of attacks are already blocked by Plone, using the `isURLInPortal` check to make sure we only redirect to a page on the same Plone site. But a few more ways of tricking Plone into accepting a malicious link were discovered, and fixed with this hotfix.

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 confidence

Plone 2.5-5.1rc1 has an open redirect vulnerability in its login mechanism. The 'came_from' parameter used to redirect users after login is validated via isURLInPortal, but attackers discovered additional bypass methods allowing redirects to external attacker-controlled sites or execution of malicious JavaScript.

MitigationApply the official Plone hotfix for CVE-2017-1000481 which adds additional URL validation checks beyond isURLInPortal to prevent malicious redirect targets.

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
PloneApplication
Affected:= 2.5.5= 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

CVSS 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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify installed Plone version
    Locate the Plone installation and check the version file or use the Zope Management Interface version info. Common locations include /path/to/Plone/version.txt or check the About information in the ZMI.
    Affected if The installed version is 2.5.5, 3.3 through 3.3.6, or 4.0 through 4.0.3 (or any version between 2.5 and 5.1rc1 not explicitly listed).
  2. Verify login template uses came_from parameter
    Examine the login form template (typically login_form or similar in the Plone skins) and confirm it accepts and passes a 'came_from' parameter for post-login redirection.
    Affected if The login mechanism includes a 'came_from' parameter that controls the post-login redirect destination.
  3. Inspect URL validation in login handler
    Review the login processing script or method that handles the 'came_from' redirect. Check if validation uses only isURLInPortal or if additional validation methods are present.
    Affected if The redirect logic relies solely on isURLInPortal without additional validation checks.
  4. Check for hotfix validation additions
    Search the codebase for additional URL validation functions added to prevent external redirects, specifically looking for checks beyond isURLInPortal that validate against a whitelist or perform stricter domain checking.
    Affected if No additional URL validation beyond isURLInPortal exists in the login redirect handling.

You are affected if your Plone version falls within 2.5 to 5.1rc1 and the login redirect mechanism lacks the additional URL validation checks added by the official hotfix.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Apply the official Plone hotfix for CVE-2017-1000481 which adds additional URL validation checks beyond isURLInPortal to prevent malicious redirect targets.

Fix this in Plone Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
11.0 hours of engineering $1,930
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-1000481 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2017-1000481 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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