CVE-2018-10207
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in Vaultize Enterprise File Sharing 17.05.31. An attacker can exploit Missing Authorization on the FlexPaperViewer SWF reader, and export files that should have been restricted, via vectors involving page-by-page access to a document in SWF format.
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 confidenceThis is a Missing Authorization vulnerability in Vaultize Enterprise File Sharing 17.05.31 where the FlexPaperViewer SWF reader component fails to enforce proper access controls. An attacker can access restricted documents page-by-page in SWF format and export them without proper authorization, bypassing intended access restrictions.
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= 17.05.31CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Confirm Vaultize Enterprise File Sharing is installedLocate the Vaultize installation directory or check system services for Vaultize Enterprise File SharingAffected if The product is installed and running
-
Verify the installed version is 17.05.31Check the product's version information (typically via About section, installer metadata, or version file in the installation directory)Affected if The version displayed equals 17.05.31 exactly
-
Determine if FlexPaperViewer component is enabledInspect the Vaultize web interface configuration or document viewer settings to confirm FlexPaperViewer SWF reader is activeAffected if FlexPaperViewer is enabled for document viewing
-
Test document access controls on SWF exportAttempt to access restricted documents through the FlexPaperViewer SWF export feature without proper authentication or authorizationAffected if Documents can be exported in SWF format without proper authorization checks being enforced
-
Verify page-by-page access restrictionsAttempt to access specific pages of restricted documents via the FlexPaperViewer component without proper permissionsAffected if Page-by-page document access is granted without validating user authorization
A user is affected if Vaultize Enterprise File Sharing version 17.05.31 is running with FlexPaperViewer enabled and the SWF export or page-by-page access bypasses authorization controls.
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 proper authorization checks in the FlexPaperViewer component to verify user permissions before allowing document access or export. All file access operations should validate the user's authorization level against the requested document.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-10207 — 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-2018-10207 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