Vulnerabilities
Misconfiguration
Runtime Security
Compliance
CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2013-4555

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Published: Nov 18, 2013 | Modified: Nov 21, 2024
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
6.8 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu
MEDIUM
Additional information
NVDhttps://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2013-4555
CWEhttps://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/352.html

Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in ecrire/action/logout.php in SPIP before 2.1.24 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests that logout the user via unspecified vectors.

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
Spip Spip * 2.1.23 (including)
Spip Spip 2.0.0 (including) 2.0.0 (including)
Spip Spip 2.0.1 (including) 2.0.1 (including)
Spip Spip 2.0.2 (including) 2.0.2 (including)
Spip Spip 2.0.3 (including) 2.0.3 (including)
Spip Spip 2.0.4 (including) 2.0.4 (including)
Spip Spip 2.0.5 (including) 2.0.5 (including)
Spip Spip 2.0.6 (including) 2.0.6 (including)
Spip Spip 2.0.7 (including) 2.0.7 (including)
Spip Spip 2.0.8 (including) 2.0.8 (including)
Spip Spip 2.0.9 (including) 2.0.9 (including)
Spip Spip 2.0.10 (including) 2.0.10 (including)
Spip Spip 2.0.11 (including) 2.0.11 (including)
Spip Spip 2.0.12 (including) 2.0.12 (including)
Spip Spip 2.0.13 (including) 2.0.13 (including)
Spip Spip 2.0.14 (including) 2.0.14 (including)
Spip Spip 2.0.15 (including) 2.0.15 (including)
Spip Spip 2.0.16 (including) 2.0.16 (including)
Spip Spip 2.0.17 (including) 2.0.17 (including)
Spip Spip 2.0.18 (including) 2.0.18 (including)
Spip Spip 2.0.19 (including) 2.0.19 (including)
Spip Spip 2.0.20 (including) 2.0.20 (including)
Spip Spip 2.0.21 (including) 2.0.21 (including)
Spip Spip 2.0.22 (including) 2.0.22 (including)
Spip Spip 2.1.1 (including) 2.1.1 (including)
Spip Spip 2.1.2 (including) 2.1.2 (including)
Spip Spip 2.1.3 (including) 2.1.3 (including)
Spip Spip 2.1.4 (including) 2.1.4 (including)
Spip Spip 2.1.5 (including) 2.1.5 (including)
Spip Spip 2.1.6 (including) 2.1.6 (including)
Spip Spip 2.1.7 (including) 2.1.7 (including)
Spip Spip 2.1.8 (including) 2.1.8 (including)
Spip Spip 2.1.9 (including) 2.1.9 (including)
Spip Spip 2.1.10 (including) 2.1.10 (including)
Spip Spip 2.1.11 (including) 2.1.11 (including)
Spip Spip 2.1.12 (including) 2.1.12 (including)
Spip Spip 2.1.13 (including) 2.1.13 (including)
Spip Spip 2.1.14 (including) 2.1.14 (including)
Spip Spip 2.1.15 (including) 2.1.15 (including)
Spip Spip 2.1.16 (including) 2.1.16 (including)
Spip Spip 2.1.17 (including) 2.1.17 (including)
Spip Spip 2.1.18 (including) 2.1.18 (including)
Spip Spip 2.1.19 (including) 2.1.19 (including)
Spip Spip 2.1.20 (including) 2.1.20 (including)
Spip Spip 2.1.21 (including) 2.1.21 (including)
Spip Spip 2.1.22 (including) 2.1.22 (including)
Spip Ubuntu artful *
Spip Ubuntu lucid *
Spip Ubuntu precise *
Spip Ubuntu quantal *
Spip Ubuntu raring *
Spip Ubuntu saucy *
Spip Ubuntu upstream *
Spip Ubuntu utopic *
Spip Ubuntu vivid *
Spip Ubuntu wily *
Spip Ubuntu yakkety *
Spip Ubuntu zesty *

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 © 2025 Aqua Security Software Ltd.   Privacy Policy | Terms of Use