CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2016-8673

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Published: Nov 23, 2016 | Modified: Dec 12, 2019
CVSS 3.x
8.8
HIGH
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS 2.x
6.8 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

A vulnerability has been identified in SIMATIC CP 343-1 Advanced (incl. SIPLUS NET variant) (All versions < V3.0.53), SIMATIC CP 443-1 Advanced (incl. SIPLUS NET variant) (All versions < V3.2.17), SIMATIC S7-300 PN/DP CPU family (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions), SIMATIC S7-400 PN/DP CPU family (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions). The integrated web server at port 80/TCP or port 443/TCP of the affected devices could allow remote attackers to perform actions with the permissions of an authenticated user, provided the targeted user has an active session and is induced to trigger the malicious request.

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
Simatic_s7_300_cpu_firmware Siemens - (including) - (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