CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2021-24584

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Published: Sep 20, 2021 | Modified: Dec 20, 2022
CVSS 3.x
5.4
MEDIUM
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
CVSS 2.x
3.5 LOW
AV:N/AC:M/Au:S/C:N/I:P/A:N
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

The Timetable and Event Schedule WordPress plugin before 2.4.2 does not have proper access control when updating a timeslot, allowing any user with the edit_posts capability (contributor+) to update arbitrary timeslot from any events. Furthermore, no CSRF check is in place as well, allowing such attack to be perform via CSRF against a logged in with such capability. In versions before 2.3.19, the lack of sanitisation and escaping in some of the fields, like the descritption could also lead to Stored XSS issues

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
Timetable_and_event_schedule Motopress * 2.4.2 (excluding)

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