CVE-2018-5377
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 · uneditedDiscuz! DiscuzX X3.4 allows remote attackers to bypass intended access restrictions via the archiver\index.php action parameter.
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 · moderate confidenceDiscuz! DiscuzX X3.4 contains an access control bypass vulnerability in the archiver/index.php component. The vulnerability allows remote attackers to bypass intended restrictions by manipulating the action parameter, likely due to improper validation of user-supplied input used for access control decisions.
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= x3.4CVSS 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 Discuz! X3.4 installationLocate the Discuz installation directory and identify the installed version by checking version files, admin panel, or source code headers (common locations: version.php, or footer/copyright notices)Affected if The installed version is Discuz! X3.4 (exact match)
-
Verify archiver/index.php existsCheck for the presence of the file archiver/index.php within the Discuz installation directoryAffected if The file archiver/index.php exists in the expected location
-
Inspect action parameter handling in archiver/index.phpOpen archiver/index.php and examine how the 'action' parameter is processed - look for insufficient access control checks or missing validation before performing sensitive operationsAffected if The code shows weak or missing validation on the action parameter that could allow unauthorized access
-
Test access control bypass via action parameterIf accessible, send a crafted request to archiver/index.php with a manipulated action parameter value targeting administrative functions (e.g., action=admin or other sensitive actions) and observe if the application permits access without proper authentication/authorizationAffected if Requests with modified action parameter succeed in accessing functions that should require higher privileges
A user is affected if running Discuz! X3.4 with the archiver/index.php component present and the action parameter lacks proper access control validation, allowing unauthorized access to restricted functions.
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 dataApply vendor-supplied patch or hotfix for Discuz! X3.4. If no patch available, implement input validation and proper access control checks on the action parameter in archiver/index.php, and restrict access to sensitive administrative functions.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-5377 — 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-2018-5377 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