CVE-2018-10362
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 phpLiteAdmin 1.9.5 through 1.9.7.1. Due to loose comparison with '==' instead of '===' in classes/Authorization.php for the user-provided login password, it is possible to login with a simpler password if the password has the form of a power in scientific notation (like '2e2' for '200' or '0e1234' for '0'). This is possible because, in the loose comparison case, PHP interprets the string as a number in scientific notation, and thus converts it to a number. After that, the comparison with '==' casts the user input (e.g., the string '200' or '0') to a number, too. Hence the attacker can login with just a '0' or a simple number he has to brute force. Strong comparison with '===' prevents the cast into numbers.
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 confidencephpLiteAdmin 1.9.5-1.9.7.1 uses loose comparison ('==') in classes/Authorization.php for password verification. When a password contains scientific notation (e.g., '2e2' or '0e1234'), PHP interprets it as a number; the loose comparison then casts both the stored password and user input to numbers, allowing authentication bypass with simple numbers like '0' or '200'.
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>= 1.9.5, <= 1.9.7.1CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/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.
-
Confirm phpLiteAdmin installation and versionCheck for phpLiteAdmin by locating the main file (typically index.php or phpliteadmin.php) and look for a version string, often in a VERSION file, in the source code comments, or displayed on the login pageAffected if Installed version is between 1.9.5 and 1.9.7.1 inclusive
-
Locate the Authorization class fileFind classes/Authorization.php within the phpLiteAdmin installation directoryAffected if The file exists in the expected location within the phpLiteAdmin codebase
-
Inspect password verification logic for loose comparisonOpen classes/Authorization.php and search for password comparison operations using the loose comparison operator '==' rather than strict comparison '==='Affected if The code uses '==' (loose comparison) for password validation instead of '===' (strict comparison)
-
Check if stored password uses scientific notation formatReview the password storage mechanism or any configured passwords to determine if any contain scientific notation patterns such as '0e' followed by digits (e.g., '0e1234', '2e2')Affected if A stored password or configured authentication credential contains a scientific notation format string that PHP would interpret as a numeric zero or number
You are affected if phpLiteAdmin version 1.9.5-1.9.7.1 is installed AND classes/Authorization.php uses loose comparison for password verification AND the password or a craftable input uses scientific notation format.
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.
dbcve · scopedReplace loose comparison ('==') with strict comparison ('===') in the password validation logic in classes/Authorization.php to prevent PHP type coercion.
phpLiteAdmin 1.9.8 or later
- Obtain phpLiteAdmin version 1.9.8 or later from the official GitHub repository (github.com/phpliteadmin)
- Replace the existing installation files with the version 1.9.8+ files
- Verify that classes/Authorization.php now uses strict comparison ('===') instead of loose comparison ('==') for password validation
- Test that authentication works correctly with the configured password
- If immediate upgrade is not possible, manually edit classes/Authorization.php and change the password comparison from '==' to '===' (e.g., change '$password == $row['password']' to '$password === $row['password']')
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $1,376.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-10362 — 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-2018-10362 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