CVE-2023-26260
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 · uneditedOXID eShop 6.2.x before 6.4.4 and 6.5.x before 6.5.2 allows session hijacking, leading to partial access of a customer's account by an attacker, due to an improper check of the user agent.
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 confidenceOXID eShop versions 6.2.x before 6.4.4 and 6.5.x before 6.5.2 contain a session hijacking vulnerability. The application improperly validates the user agent string when managing sessions, allowing an attacker to potentially steal or impersonate a user's session and gain partial access to customer accounts.
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>= 6.2.0, < 6.5.2CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/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 installed OXID eShop versionLocate the version file or configuration file in the OXID installation directory (typically found in source files or config.inc.php). Look for version constant or metadata file.Affected if Installed version is 6.2.x before 6.4.4, or 6.5.x before 6.5.2, or any version below 6.4.4/6.5.2 within the 6.2.0 to 6.5.2 range
-
Locate session configurationFind the session management configuration file, typically config.inc.php in the OXID config directory. Search for session-related settings.Affected if Session configuration file exists and contains validation settings
-
Examine session validation methodReview the session configuration or session handler code for how user agent is being validated. Look for code that compares user agent string for session verification.Affected if Session validation relies solely on user agent string matching without additional factors like IP address binding or session ID regeneration on login
-
Check for multi-factor session validationInspect session management code or configuration for additional validation factors beyond user agent. Look for IP validation, session ID regeneration, or other multi-factor checks.Affected if No additional session validation factors are implemented beyond user agent string comparison
-
Verify session ID regeneration behaviorCheck if the application regenerates session IDs upon user login. Look for session_regenerate_id() calls in authentication code.Affected if Session IDs are not regenerated after login, allowing session fixation attacks
The environment is affected if the installed OXID eShop version falls within 6.2.0 to < 6.4.4 or 6.5.x to < 6.5.2 AND session validation relies only on user agent string without additional factors like IP binding or session ID regeneration.
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.
dbcve · scoped6.5.2
Upgrade OXID eShop to version 6.4.4 or 6.5.2 or later. Additionally, implement proper session validation using multiple factors beyond user agent (e.g., IP binding, regenerate session IDs on login).
OXID eShop 6.5.2 (or 6.4.4 for the 6.4.x branch)
- 1. Back up your OXID eShop database and files before proceeding with any upgrade.
- 2. Download OXID eShop version 6.5.2 (for 6.5.x installations) or version 6.4.4 (for 6.4.x installations) from the official OXID eShop repository or your licensed distribution channel.
- 3. Upload the new version files to your server, replacing the existing installation.
- 4. Run the migration scripts if any are provided with the new version.
- 5. Clear all cached files in the tmp/ and cache/ directories.
- 6. Verify the shop is functioning correctly and test that session handling works as expected.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-26260 — 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-2023-26260 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