CVE-2018-0658
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 · uneditedInput validation issue in EC-CUBE Payment Module (2.12) version 3.5.23 and earlier, EC-CUBE Payment Module (2.11) version 2.3.17 and earlier, GMO-PG Payment Module (PG Multi-Payment Service) (2.12) version 3.5.23 and earlier, GMO-PG Payment Module (PG Multi-Payment Service) (2.11) version 2.3.17 and earlier allows an attacker with administrative rights to execute arbitrary PHP code on the server via unspecified vectors.
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 confidenceInput validation vulnerability in EC-CUBE and GMO-PG payment modules versions 3.5.23 and earlier (2.12) and 2.3.17 and earlier (2.11) allows authenticated administrators to execute arbitrary PHP code on the server through unsanitized input fields in the payment processing logic.
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<= 2.3.17<= 3.5.23<= 2.3.17<= 3.5.23CVSS 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
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/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 EC-CUBE or GMO-PG payment module installationLook for payment module files in the web application directory, typically under /data/class/ or /module/ directories. Check composer.json, plugin lists, or the admin panel for installed payment plugins.Affected if EC-CUBE or GMO-PG payment modules are found in the environment
-
Determine the installed payment module versionCheck the version information in the module's composer.json, plugin configuration file, or within the EC-CUBE admin panel under 'Owners Store' or 'Plugins' section. Version files are often named version.php or defined in plugin.yml.Affected if The version is 2.3.17 or lower, or 3.5.23 or lower (for 2.11/2.12 series)
-
Verify administrative access existsCheck if administrator accounts exist in the database (typically in the 'dtb_member' or similar table) or if the admin panel (/admin or /administrator path) is accessible and functional.Affected if Administrator accounts are present and the admin panel is accessible
-
Inspect payment processing configurationNavigate to the payment method settings in the EC-CUBE admin panel or inspect configuration files in /app/config/eccube/ or similar paths for payment module settings.Affected if Payment processing modules are enabled and configured
The environment is affected if EC-CUBE or GMO-PG payment modules versions 2.3.17 or lower or 3.5.23 or lower are installed with an accessible administrative interface.
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 to EC-CUBE Payment Module 3.5.24+ or 2.3.18+ (and corresponding GMO-PG modules), or strictly limit administrative access to trusted personnel only until patching is possible.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $2,832.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-0658 — 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-2018-0658 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