CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2017-5943

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Published: Jul 03, 2017 | Modified: Jul 07, 2017
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
MEDIUM

Request Tracker (RT) 4.x before 4.0.25, 4.2.x before 4.2.14, and 4.4.x before 4.4.2 allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information about cross-site request forgery (CSRF) verification tokens via a crafted URL.

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
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.0.0 (including) 4.0.0 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.0.1 (including) 4.0.1 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.0.2 (including) 4.0.2 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.0.3 (including) 4.0.3 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.0.4 (including) 4.0.4 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.0.5 (including) 4.0.5 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.0.6 (including) 4.0.6 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.0.7 (including) 4.0.7 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.0.8 (including) 4.0.8 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.0.9 (including) 4.0.9 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.0.10 (including) 4.0.10 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.0.11 (including) 4.0.11 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.0.12 (including) 4.0.12 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.0.13 (including) 4.0.13 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.0.14 (including) 4.0.14 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.0.15 (including) 4.0.15 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.0.16 (including) 4.0.16 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.0.17 (including) 4.0.17 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.0.18 (including) 4.0.18 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.0.19 (including) 4.0.19 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.0.20 (including) 4.0.20 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.0.21 (including) 4.0.21 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.0.22 (including) 4.0.22 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.0.23 (including) 4.0.23 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.0.24 (including) 4.0.24 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.2.0 (including) 4.2.0 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.2.1 (including) 4.2.1 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.2.2 (including) 4.2.2 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.2.3 (including) 4.2.3 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.2.4 (including) 4.2.4 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.2.5 (including) 4.2.5 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.2.6 (including) 4.2.6 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.2.7 (including) 4.2.7 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.2.8 (including) 4.2.8 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.2.9 (including) 4.2.9 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.2.10 (including) 4.2.10 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.2.11 (including) 4.2.11 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.2.12 (including) 4.2.12 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.2.13 (including) 4.2.13 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.4.0 (including) 4.4.0 (including)
Request_tracker Bestpractical 4.4.1 (including) 4.4.1 (including)
Request-tracker4 Ubuntu esm-apps/xenial *
Request-tracker4 Ubuntu trusty *
Request-tracker4 Ubuntu upstream *
Request-tracker4 Ubuntu xenial *
Request-tracker4 Ubuntu yakkety *
Request-tracker4 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