Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)Weakness · CWE-352

CVE-2024-6662

HIGH · 8.7 CVSS v4.0 Published 2025-01-10
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
94/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges

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 · unedited
Websites managed by MegaBIP in versions below 5.15 are vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) as the form available under "/edytor/index.php?id=7,7,0" lacks protection mechanisms. A user could be tricked into visiting a malicious website, which would send POST request to this endpoint. If the victim is a logged in administrator, this could lead to creation of new accounts and granting of administrative permissions.

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 confidence

CSRF vulnerability in MegaBIP CMS versions below 5.15 allows attackers to trick authenticated administrators into creating unauthorized administrative accounts. The form at /edytor/index.php?id=7,7,0 lacks anti-CSRF token protection, enabling malicious POST requests from attacker-controlled pages.

MitigationImplement synchronizer token pattern (anti-CSRF tokens) on all administrative forms including the account creation endpoint, and validate Origin/Referer headers server-side to prevent cross-origin requests.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

CVSS 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
Authentication
X
User interaction
P
Scope
X

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify MegaBIP CMS version
    Locate the version file or admin panel footer that displays the current MegaBIP CMS version number
    Affected if The installed version is below 5.15 (e.g., 5.14, 5.13, etc.)
  2. Confirm the vulnerable endpoint exists
    Access the URL /edytor/index.php?id=7,7,0 while authenticated as an administrator and verify the page loads the account creation form
    Affected if The page loads successfully and displays an administrative account creation form
  3. Inspect form for anti-CSRF token
    View the HTML source of the form at /edytor/index.php?id=7,7,0 and search for a hidden input field or token parameter (commonly named 'token', 'csrf_token', 'security_token', or similar)
    Affected if The form contains NO hidden anti-CSRF token field and the page does not generate any token on load
  4. Verify token validation on submission
    Submit a POST request to the form endpoint without any token and observe whether the server accepts or rejects the request
    Affected if The server processes the request and creates the account without requiring a valid token

A user is affected if MegaBIP CMS version is below 5.15 AND the account creation form at /edytor/index.php?id=7,7,0 exists and lacks anti-CSRF token protection.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 · scoped
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement synchronizer token pattern (anti-CSRF tokens) on all administrative forms including the account creation endpoint, and validate Origin/Referer headers server-side to prevent cross-origin requests.

Recommended fix Moderate confidence

MegaBIP 5.15

  1. 1. Create a complete backup of the current MegaBIP installation including database and all files
  2. 2. Download MegaBIP version 5.15 or later from the official vendor source
  3. 3. Restore the backup in a staging environment and test the upgrade procedure
  4. 4. Apply the upgrade to the production environment
  5. 5. Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the MegaBIP version number
  6. 6. Log in as administrator and confirm CSRF protection is now enforced on the /edytor/index.php?id=7,7,0 endpoint
  7. 7. Test that the form under the vulnerable endpoint now includes anti-CSRF tokens

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
14.0 hours of engineering $2,490
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-6662 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-6662 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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