CVE Vulnerabilities


Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Published: Jun 19, 2016 | Modified: Dec 16, 2016
CVSS 3.x
CVSS 2.x

HPE Service Manager Software 9.30, 9.31, 9.32, 9.33, 9.34, 9.35, 9.40, and 9.41 allows remote authenticated users to obtain sensitive information, modify data, and conduct server-side request forgery (SSRF) attacks via unspecified vectors, related to the Server, Web Client, Windows Client, and Service Request components.


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
Service_manager Hp 9.30 (including) 9.30 (including)
Service_manager Hp 9.31 (including) 9.31 (including)
Service_manager Hp 9.32 (including) 9.32 (including)
Service_manager Hp 9.33 (including) 9.33 (including)
Service_manager Hp 9.34 (including) 9.34 (including)
Service_manager Hp 9.35 (including) 9.35 (including)
Service_manager Hp 9.40 (including) 9.40 (including)
Service_manager Hp 9.41 (including) 9.41 (including)
Service_manager_mobility Hp 9.30 (including) 9.30 (including)
Service_manager_mobility Hp 9.31 (including) 9.31 (including)
Service_manager_mobility Hp 9.32 (including) 9.32 (including)
Service_manager_mobility Hp 9.33 (including) 9.33 (including)
Service_manager_mobility Hp 9.34 (including) 9.34 (including)
Service_manager_mobility Hp 9.35 (including) 9.35 (including)
Service_manager_mobility Hp 9.40 (including) 9.40 (including)
Service_manager_mobility Hp 9.41 (including) 9.41 (including)
Service_manager_server Hp 9.30 (including) 9.30 (including)
Service_manager_server Hp 9.31 (including) 9.31 (including)
Service_manager_server Hp 9.32 (including) 9.32 (including)
Service_manager_server Hp 9.33 (including) 9.33 (including)
Service_manager_server Hp 9.34 (including) 9.34 (including)
Service_manager_server Hp 9.35 (including) 9.35 (including)
Service_manager_server Hp 9.40 (including) 9.40 (including)
Service_manager_server Hp 9.41 (including) 9.41 (including)
Service_manager_service_request_catalog Hp 9.30 (including) 9.30 (including)
Service_manager_service_request_catalog Hp 9.31 (including) 9.31 (including)
Service_manager_service_request_catalog Hp 9.32 (including) 9.32 (including)
Service_manager_service_request_catalog Hp 9.33 (including) 9.33 (including)
Service_manager_service_request_catalog Hp 9.34 (including) 9.34 (including)
Service_manager_service_request_catalog Hp 9.35 (including) 9.35 (including)
Service_manager_service_request_catalog Hp 9.40 (including) 9.40 (including)
Service_manager_service_request_catalog Hp 9.41 (including) 9.41 (including)
Service_manager_web_client Hp 9.30 (including) 9.30 (including)
Service_manager_web_client Hp 9.31 (including) 9.31 (including)
Service_manager_web_client Hp 9.32 (including) 9.32 (including)
Service_manager_web_client Hp 9.33 (including) 9.33 (including)
Service_manager_web_client Hp 9.34 (including) 9.34 (including)
Service_manager_web_client Hp 9.35 (including) 9.35 (including)
Service_manager_web_client Hp 9.40 (including) 9.40 (including)
Service_manager_web_client Hp 9.41 (including) 9.41 (including)
Service_manager_windows_client Hp 9.30 (including) 9.30 (including)
Service_manager_windows_client Hp 9.31 (including) 9.31 (including)
Service_manager_windows_client Hp 9.32 (including) 9.32 (including)
Service_manager_windows_client Hp 9.33 (including) 9.33 (including)
Service_manager_windows_client Hp 9.34 (including) 9.34 (including)
Service_manager_windows_client Hp 9.35 (including) 9.35 (including)
Service_manager_windows_client Hp 9.40 (including) 9.40 (including)
Service_manager_windows_client Hp 9.41 (including) 9.41 (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]