CVE-2019-9080
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 · uneditedDomainMOD before 4.14.0 uses MD5 without a salt for password storage.
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 confidenceDomainMOD before version 4.14.0 stores user passwords using unsalted MD5 hashing, which is cryptographically weak and vulnerable to rainbow table attacks and rapid brute-force cracking.
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< 4.14.0CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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.
-
Identify DomainMOD installation versionLog into the DomainMOD admin dashboard and navigate to Settings > About, or check for a version file in the web root directory (e.g., version.php or similar).Affected if The installed version is less than 4.14.0
-
Verify database password hash formatAccess the DomainMOD database (typically via phpMyAdmin or mysql CLI) and query the users table (often named 'users' or similar) to inspect the password column.Affected if Password hashes are 32-character MD5 strings without any visible salt component appended or prepended
-
Check for password salt columnQuery the database schema for the users table and look for columns that might contain salts (e.g., salt, password_salt).Affected if No salt column exists or all salt fields are empty/null while password hashes are present
-
Confirm hash algorithm in source codeIf you have access to the DomainMOD source code, locate the password hashing function (typically in an authentication or user model file) and verify it uses md5() without a salt parameter.Affected if The code shows password hashing implemented as md5($password) without any salt variable being incorporated into the hash
You are affected if your DomainMOD installation is version 4.14.0 or lower and your database stores passwords as unsalted MD5 hashes.
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 data4.14.0
Upgrade to DomainMOD 4.14.0 or later and force a mandatory password reset for all users since existing MD5 password hashes are vulnerable to compromise.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $2,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-9080 — 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-2019-9080 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