CVE-2017-11422
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 · uneditedStatamic framework before 2.6.0 does not correctly check a session's permissions when the methods from a user's class are called. Problematic methods include reset password, create new account, create new role, etc.
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 confidenceStatamic CMS versions before 2.6.0 contain an authentication/authorization bypass where sensitive methods (password reset, account creation, role creation) fail to properly validate session permissions, allowing unauthenticated or low-privilege users to execute privileged operations.
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< 2.6.0CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Determine installed Statamic versionCheck the version.php or composer.json file in the Statamic installation root directory. Common paths: /version.php or /composer.json (look for 'version' field or statamic/statamic package version)Affected if The installed version is below 2.6.0 (e.g., 2.5.x, 2.4.x, etc.)
-
Identify Statamic installation pathLocate the main Statamic installation directory on the web server. This is typically the web root where index.php, composer.json, and the /statamic folder resideAffected if Cannot locate the installation or version file to verify the version
-
Check for exposed user management routesReview routes.yaml or Routes.php in the Statamic configuration to see if routes related to user management, password reset, or role creation are publicly accessible. Look for routes under /users, /password, /roles endpoints without authentication requirementsAffected if Routes for password reset, user creation, or role management are defined without authentication middleware (no 'auth' or 'protected' flag)
-
Inspect API endpoint accessibilityTest if the user management API endpoints respond without authentication by sending a GET/POST request to endpoints like /api/users or /api/roles. Use curl or browser developer tools to observe the responseAffected if The API returns user data, role data, or accepts create/update operations without requiring valid session authentication
You are affected if your Statamic installation is version 2.5.x or lower AND sensitive user management endpoints (password reset, account creation, role creation) are accessible without authentication.
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 data2.6.0
Upgrade to Statamic 2.6.0 or later which implements proper session permission checks for sensitive user management methods.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-11422 — 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-2017-11422 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