Vulnerabilities
Misconfiguration
Runtime Security
Compliance
CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2008-3716

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Published: Aug 19, 2008 | Modified: Sep 29, 2017
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
6 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:M/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu
Additional information
NVDhttps://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2008-3716
CWEhttps://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/352.html

Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Harmoni before 1.6.0 allows remote attackers to make administrative modifications via a (1) save or (2) delete action to an unspecified component.

Weakness

The web application does not, or can not, sufficiently verify whether a well-formed, valid, consistent request was intentionally provided by the user who submitted the request.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Harmoni Harmoni * 1.4.7 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.0.2 (including) 0.0.2 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.0.3 (including) 0.0.3 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.0.4 (including) 0.0.4 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.0.5 (including) 0.0.5 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.1.0 (including) 0.1.0 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.2.0 (including) 0.2.0 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.3.0 (including) 0.3.0 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.3.1 (including) 0.3.1 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.3.2 (including) 0.3.2 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.5.1 (including) 0.5.1 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.6.0 (including) 0.6.0 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.6.2 (including) 0.6.2 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.7.0 (including) 0.7.0 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.7.1 (including) 0.7.1 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.7.2 (including) 0.7.2 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.7.6 (including) 0.7.6 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.7.7 (including) 0.7.7 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.9.0 (including) 0.9.0 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.10.1 (including) 0.10.1 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.11.0 (including) 0.11.0 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.12.0 (including) 0.12.0 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.12.1 (including) 0.12.1 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.12.3 (including) 0.12.3 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.13.0 (including) 0.13.0 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.13.1 (including) 0.13.1 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.13.2 (including) 0.13.2 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.13.3 (including) 0.13.3 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.13.4 (including) 0.13.4 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.13.5 (including) 0.13.5 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.13.6 (including) 0.13.6 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 0.13.7 (including) 0.13.7 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 1.0.0 (including) 1.0.0 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 1.0.1 (including) 1.0.1 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 1.0.2 (including) 1.0.2 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 1.0.3 (including) 1.0.3 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 1.0.5 (including) 1.0.5 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 1.0.6 (including) 1.0.6 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 1.1.0 (including) 1.1.0 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 1.3.0 (including) 1.3.0 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 1.3.2 (including) 1.3.2 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 1.3.4 (including) 1.3.4 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 1.3.5 (including) 1.3.5 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 1.4.2 (including) 1.4.2 (including)
Harmoni Harmoni 1.4.6 (including) 1.4.6 (including)

Potential Mitigations

  • Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
  • For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330]
  • Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]
  • Use the “double-submitted cookie” method as described by Felten and Zeller:
  • When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user’s machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as a form value and also as a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form value and the cookie value are the same.
  • Because of the same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult.
  • This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled. [REF-331]

References

Aqua Security is the largest pure-play cloud native security company, providing customers the freedom to innovate and run their businesses with minimal friction. The Aqua Cloud Native Security Platform provides prevention, detection, and response automation across the entire application lifecycle to secure the build, secure cloud infrastructure and secure running workloads wherever they are deployed.
Copyright © 2024 Aqua Security Software Ltd.   Privacy Policy | Terms of Use