CVE-2022-26173
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 · uneditedJForum v2.8.0 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via http://target_host:port/jforum-2.8.0/jforum.page, which allows attackers to arbitrarily add admin accounts.
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 confidenceJForum v2.8.0 contains a CSRF vulnerability in the jforum.page endpoint that allows an attacker to trick an authenticated administrator into unknowingly creating new administrative accounts. The attack exploits the lack of anti-CSRF tokens on the admin user creation functionality, enabling unauthorized admin account addition via a maliciously crafted request.
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= 2.8.0CVSS 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:3.1/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.
-
Confirm JForum installation and versionLocate the JForum deployment (typically a WAR file or installed web application) and identify the version number. This may be found in the WAR filename, within the application admin panel under an 'About' section, or in version files within the application directory structure.Affected if The installed version is exactly 2.8.0
-
Access the JForum admin interfaceNavigate to the JForum administrative panel, typically accessed via a URL path such as /jforum/page or /admin (the exact path depends on deployment configuration). Log in with administrator credentials.Affected if The admin interface is accessible and functional with valid admin credentials
-
Inspect the admin user creation form for anti-CSRF tokensNavigate to the admin user creation page (typically found in user management or admin settings). View the page source (HTML) and examine the form submission endpoint (the 'action' attribute) and all input fields. Look for hidden input fields containing tokens such as 'csrf', 'token', 'securityToken', or similar anti-CSRF token names.Affected if The user creation form lacks hidden anti-CSRF token fields or the form does not validate tokens upon submission
-
Test jforum.page endpoint for CSRF protectionSubmit a crafted POST request to the jforum.page endpoint that creates a user (simulating the attack) without including any token parameters. Observe whether the request is processed or rejected based on missing token validation.Affected if The jforum.page endpoint processes state-changing admin requests (like user creation) without requiring or validating anti-CSRF tokens
-
Check browser security headers on admin endpointsUsing browser developer tools or a HTTP header inspection tool, examine the response headers from JForum admin pages. Look for SameSite cookie attributes and CSRF-related headers.Affected if Cookies set by JForum lack SameSite attributes and there is no server-side CSRF token validation mechanism present
A defender is affected if they are running JForum version 2.8.0 and the admin user creation functionality accessible via the jforum.page endpoint does not implement or validate anti-CSRF tokens on form submissions.
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 synchronize token pattern (anti-CSRF tokens) on all admin-facing forms and state-changing endpoints, particularly user creation. Additionally, configure SameSite cookie attributes and add Origin/Referrer header validation as defense-in-depth measures.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-26173 — 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-2022-26173 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