CVE-2018-15177
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 · uneditedIn Gxlcms 2.0, a news/index.php?s=Admin-Admin-Insert CSRF attack can add an administrator account.
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 confidenceGxlcms 2.0 contains a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in news/index.php that allows attackers to trick authenticated administrators into unknowingly creating new administrator accounts by submitting a crafted form.
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= 2.0CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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 Gxlcms versionLocate the version indicator in the application (typically in the admin dashboard footer, a version.php file, or the installer)Affected if The installed version is exactly 2.0 (Gxlcms 2.0)
-
Verify news/index.php exists and is accessibleAccess the news/index.php file via the web server to confirm the endpoint exists in the applicationAffected if The file exists and responds to requests (the CSRF attack surface is present)
-
Inspect admin creation form for anti-CSRF tokensNavigate to the admin/user creation form in the administrative interface, view the page source, and search for a token field (commonly named csrf_token, token, or similar)Affected if The admin creation form lacks a hidden anti-CSRF token field
-
Check server-side token validation on state-changing requestsExamine the PHP code in news/index.php (or the controller handling admin creation) for server-side validation of anti-CSRF tokens on POST/PUT requests that create admin accountsAffected if The code does not validate anti-CSRF tokens server-side before processing admin account creation
You are affected if running Gxlcms 2.0 and the admin creation form in news/index.php lacks anti-CSRF token protection both in the form (client-side) and in the processing logic (server-side).
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 anti-CSRF tokens on all administrative action forms, including the admin creation form, and validate these tokens server-side on every state-changing request.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $3,904.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-15177 — 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-2018-15177 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