CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2022-40179

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Published: Oct 11, 2022 | Modified: Oct 12, 2022
CVSS 3.x
8.1
HIGH
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

A vulnerability has been identified in Desigo PXM30-1 (All versions < V02.20.126.11-41), Desigo PXM30.E (All versions < V02.20.126.11-41), Desigo PXM40-1 (All versions < V02.20.126.11-41), Desigo PXM40.E (All versions < V02.20.126.11-41), Desigo PXM50-1 (All versions < V02.20.126.11-41), Desigo PXM50.E (All versions < V02.20.126.11-41), PXG3.W100-1 (All versions < V02.20.126.11-37), PXG3.W100-2 (All versions < V02.20.126.11-41), PXG3.W200-1 (All versions < V02.20.126.11-37), PXG3.W200-2 (All versions < V02.20.126.11-41). A Cross-Site Request Forgery exists in endpoints of the “Operation” web application that interpret and execute Axon language queries, due to the missing validation of anti-CSRF tokens or other origin checks. By convincing a victim to click on a malicious link or visit a specifically crafted webpage while logged-in to the device web application, a remote unauthenticated attacker can execute arbitrary Axon queries against 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
Desigo_pxm30-1_firmware Siemens * 02.20.126.11-41 (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