CVE-2017-1000489
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 · uneditedMautic versions 2.0.0 - 2.11.0 with a SSO plugin installed could allow a disabled user to still login using email address
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 confidenceIn Mautic versions 2.0.0-2.11.0 with an SSO plugin installed, the authentication logic fails to properly check whether a user account has been disabled before allowing login via email address. This enables disabled accounts to bypass the disabled status check and successfully authenticate to the platform.
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= 2.0.0= 2.0.1= 2.1.0= 2.1.1= 2.2.0= 2.2.1= 2.3.0= 2.4.0= 2.5.0= 2.5.1= 2.6.0= 2.6.1= 2.9.0= 2.9.2= 2.10.0= 2.11.0CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/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 the installed Mautic versionAccess the Mautic admin dashboard and navigate to the system information page, or check the version file in the Mautic installation directoryAffected if The version falls within 2.0.0 to 2.11.0 (including 2.0.0, 2.0.1, 2.1.0, 2.1.1, 2.2.0, 2.2.1, 2.3.0, 2.4.0, 2.5.0, 2.5.1, 2.6.0, 2.6.1, 2.9.0, 2.9.2, 2.10.0, 2.11.0)
-
Determine if the SSO plugin is installed and enabledNavigate to the plugins or extensions management section in the Mautic admin panel and verify whether any SSO-related authentication plugin (such as SAML, OAuth, or custom SSO) is present and activeAffected if An SSO plugin is installed and enabled in the Mautic instance
-
Review all user accounts marked as disabledAccess the user management section in Mautic and filter for accounts with disabled or inactive statusAffected if There are disabled user accounts present in the system
-
Examine authentication logs for disabled account accessReview Mautic's audit logs or authentication logs, specifically filtering for login events from accounts that are marked as disabledAffected if Any disabled user account has successfully authenticated to the system after the SSO plugin was enabled
The environment is affected if Mautic version is between 2.0.0 and 2.11.0, an SSO plugin is installed, and disabled user accounts exist or have successfully authenticated via SSO.
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 Mautic to a version beyond 2.11.0 that contains the patch, or if the SSO plugin is not required, disable it. Additionally, review all disabled user accounts that may have accessed the system during the vulnerable period.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-1000489 — 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-2017-1000489 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