CVE-2018-10375
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 · uneditedA file uploading vulnerability exists in /include/helpers/upload.helper.php in DedeCMS V5.7 SP2, which can be utilized by attackers to upload and execute arbitrary PHP code via the /dede/archives_do.php?dopost=uploadLitpic litpic parameter when "Content-Type: image/jpeg" is sent, but the filename ends in .php and contains PHP code.
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 confidenceDedeCMS V5.7 SP2 contains an insecure file upload vulnerability in the litpic parameter of /dede/archives_do.php. The application validates only the Content-Type header (accepting image/jpeg) but fails to validate the file extension or contents, allowing attackers to upload files with .php extensions containing malicious PHP code that can then be executed on the server.
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= 5.7CVSS 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 DedeCMS installation and versionCheck for DedeCMS by looking for characteristic files (like /include/common.inc.php) or login pages at /dede/login.php. Review any version documentation or meta tags that reveal the installed version.Affected if The installed DedeCMS version is 5.7 (or specifically labeled as SP2).
-
Verify /dede/ directory is accessibleAttempt to access the /dede/ directory via HTTP request. This is the administrative backend where the vulnerable file upload functionality resides.Affected if The /dede/ directory returns a valid response (login page or admin interface), indicating the backend is exposed.
-
Check for archives_do.php fileVerify the existence of /dede/archives_do.php on the web server. This is the specific file that handles the vulnerable litpic parameter.Affected if The file /dede/archives_do.php exists and is accessible via the web server.
-
Identify if file upload functionality is enabledReview the application's configuration and examine whether the litpic (thumbnail/upload) feature is available in the article publishing workflow. This is typically accessible through the admin backend when creating or editing articles.Affected if The article publishing/upload feature is available and accessible to the user, allowing them to submit the litpic parameter.
A user is affected if they are running DedeCMS version 5.7 with the /dede/ administrative backend accessible and the file upload feature enabled.
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 comprehensive file upload validation that checks the actual file content/magic bytes, validates file extensions against an allowlist, and stores uploaded files outside the webroot or with non-executable permissions.
- Consultation3.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-10375 — 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-2018-10375 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