CVE-2019-18220
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 · uneditedSitemagic CMS 4.4.1 is affected by a Cross-Site-Request-Forgery (CSRF) issue as it doesn't implement any method to validate incoming requests, allowing the execution of critical functionalities via spoofed requests. This behavior could be abused by a remote unauthenticated attacker to trick Sitemagic users into performing unwarranted actions.
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 confidenceSitemagic CMS 4.4.1 lacks anti-CSRF protection, allowing attackers to craft malicious requests that execute when authenticated users visit attacker-controlled pages or click malicious links. The absence of token validation, SameSite cookie attributes, or referrer/origin header checks enables spoofed requests to perform critical administrative actions.
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= 4.4.1CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/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.
-
Verify Sitemagic CMS versionLocate the version file or admin panel about section to confirm the installed version is 4.4.1Affected if The installed version is exactly 4.4.1 (other versions may have different vulnerability status)
-
Inspect form submissions for CSRF tokensView page source of any state-changing form (user management, content editing, settings) and check if a hidden CSRF token field or anti-CSRF token parameter existsAffected if No token field is present in forms that perform state-changing operations
-
Examine session cookie configurationUse browser developer tools or inspect cookies sent by Sitemagic; check the Set-Cookie header or cookie attributes for SameSite and Secure flagsAffected if Session cookies lack SameSite attribute or have SameSite set to None without Secure flag
-
Check request validation logicReview server-side code (index.php or framework files) for referrer or Origin header validation before processing administrative actionsAffected if No referrer/origin header validation is performed before executing sensitive operations
You are affected if running Sitemagic CMS 4.4.1 AND forms lack CSRF tokens AND session cookies lack SameSite attributes AND no referrer/origin validation exists for admin actions.
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 for all state-changing operations, configure SameSite attributes on session cookies, and add referrer/origin header validation to verify request origin.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $4,480.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-18220 — 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-2019-18220 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