CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2017-7917

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Published: May 29, 2017 | Modified: Oct 09, 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 Cross-Site Request Forgery issue was discovered in Moxa OnCell G3110-HSPA Version 1.3 build 15082117 and previous versions, OnCell G3110-HSDPA Version 1.2 Build 09123015 and previous versions, OnCell G3150-HSDPA Version 1.4 Build 11051315 and previous versions, OnCell 5104-HSDPA, OnCell 5104-HSPA, and OnCell 5004-HSPA. The application does not sufficiently verify if a request was intentionally provided by the user who submitted the request, which could allow an attacker to modify the configuration of the device.

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
Oncell_g3110-hspa_firmware Moxa * 1.3 (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