UmbracoCMS

CVE-2019-13957

CRITICAL · 9.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2019-10-02
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
In Umbraco 7.3.8, there is SQL Injection in the backoffice/PageWApprove/PageWApproveApi/GetInpectSearch method via the nodeName 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 · high confidence

SQL Injection vulnerability in Umbraco CMS 7.3.8 within the backoffice API endpoint /PageWApprove/PageWApproveApi/GetInpectSearch. The nodeName parameter is not properly sanitized, allowing attackers to inject malicious SQL queries. This is a critical flaw as it enables unauthenticated attackers (given backoffice accessibility) to manipulate database queries and potentially exfiltrate or modify sensitive data.

MitigationUpgrade Umbraco to the latest version which contains the security patch, or implement parameterized queries/input validation on the nodeName parameter in the affected GetInpectSearch method to neutralize SQL injection vectors.

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
UmbracoCMS
Affected:= 7.3.8

CVSS 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:3.1/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Verify Umbraco CMS version
    Check the installed Umbraco version in the web.config file (look for the umbracoConfigurationStatus key) or access the Umbraco backoffice About page at /umbraco/#/help/about
    Affected if The installed version equals 7.3.8 exactly (version 7.3.8)
  2. Identify PageWApprove package installation
    Inspect the /bin folder for DLLs containing 'PageWApprove' or check the /App_Plugins folder for PageWApprove components. Also check the umbracoDbVersion table in the database for package references.
    Affected if The PageWApprove package is installed on the system
  3. Confirm endpoint exposure
    Check if the path /PageWApprove/PageWApproveApi/GetInpectSearch is accessible by attempting a request to this endpoint or inspecting the routes in the compiled DLLs
    Affected if The GetInpectSearch endpoint is present and exposed (note: the spelling 'GetInpectSearch' is intentional per the CVE)
  4. Verify backoffice accessibility
    Confirm whether the Umbraco backoffice (/umbraco) is accessible from the network. Test by accessing the login page or checking IIS/site configuration for authentication requirements.
    Affected if The backoffice is accessible to unauthenticated or untrusted users (this amplifies the risk but authenticated users with backoffice access can also exploit it)

A user is affected if they are running Umbraco version 7.3.8 with the PageWApprove package installed and the vulnerable GetInpectSearch endpoint is accessible, regardless of whether the backoffice requires authentication.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Upgrade Umbraco to the latest version which contains the security patch, or implement parameterized queries/input validation on the nodeName parameter in the affected GetInpectSearch method to neutralize SQL injection vectors.

Fix this in Umbraco Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
10.0 hours of engineering $1,750
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-13957 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2019-13957 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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