CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2018-1000858

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Published: Dec 20, 2018 | Modified: Nov 21, 2024
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
5.4 MODERATE
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
Ubuntu
MEDIUM

GnuPG version 2.1.12 - 2.2.11 contains a Cross ite Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in dirmngr that can result in Attacker controlled CSRF, Information Disclosure, DoS. This attack appear to be exploitable via Victim must perform a WKD request, e.g. enter an email address in the composer window of Thunderbird/Enigmail. This vulnerability appears to have been fixed in after commit 4a4bb874f63741026bd26264c43bb32b1099f060.

Weakness

The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Gnupg Gnupg 2.1.12 (including) 2.2.11 (including)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 RedHat gnupg2-0:2.2.20-2.el8 *
Gnupg2 Ubuntu bionic *
Gnupg2 Ubuntu cosmic *
Gnupg2 Ubuntu devel *
Gnupg2 Ubuntu esm-infra/bionic *
Gnupg2 Ubuntu upstream *

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 [REF-1482].
  • 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