CVE-2023-3599
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 · uneditedA vulnerability was found in SourceCodester Best Fee Management System 1.0. It has been rated as critical. Affected by this issue is the function save_user of the file admin_class.php of the component Add User Handler. The manipulation leads to improper access controls. The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. VDB-233450 is the identifier assigned to this vulnerability.
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 confidenceThe save_user function in admin_class.php of SourceCodester Best Fee Management System 1.0 lacks proper access controls, allowing remote unauthenticated attackers to create administrative users. The vulnerability stems from the Add User Handler not verifying user session validity or role privileges before executing the user creation logic.
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= 1.0CVSS 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
- 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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Locate the vulnerable admin_class.php fileSearch for admin_class.php in the web root directory of the Best Fee Management System installationAffected if The file exists and the system is running Best Fee Management System version 1.0
-
Verify the save_user function existsOpen admin_class.php and locate the save_user function definitionAffected if The save_user function is present in the codebase
-
Check if access controls exist in save_userExamine the save_user function code to see if it performs session validation, role verification, or privilege checks before creating usersAffected if The function contains NO session checks, role validation, or privilege verification before executing user creation logic
-
Test Add User endpoint accessibilityAttempt to access the Add User functionality or endpoint without providing valid authentication credentialsAffected if The Add User handler can be reached and executed without a valid logged-in session
-
Confirm system versionCheck the application's version information (typically in an about page, README, or version config file)Affected if The installed version is exactly 1.0
If the system is Best Fee Management System 1.0 with admin_class.php containing a save_user function that lacks session/role validation, the environment is affected by CVE-2023-3599.
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 proper authentication checks and role-based access control (RBAC) on the save_user function to ensure only authorized administrators can add users. Additionally, add CSRF protection and validate that the requesting user has sufficient privileges.
- Consultation3.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-3599 — 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-2023-3599 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