CVE-2024-24820

Icinga Director is a tool designed to make Icinga 2 configuration handling easy. Not any of Icinga Directors configuration forms used to manipulate the monitoring environment are protected against cross site request forgery (CSRF). It enables attackers to perform changes in the monitoring environment managed by Icinga Director without the awareness of the victim. Users of the map module in version 1.x, should immediately upgrade to v2.0. The mentioned XSS vulnerabilities in Icinga Web are already fixed as well and upgrades to the most recent release of the 2.9, 2.10 or 2.11 branch must be performed if not done yet. Any later major release is also suitable. Icinga Director will receive minor updates to the 1.8, 1.9, 1.10 and 1.11 branches to remedy this issue. Upgrade immediately to a patched release. If that is not feasible, disable the director module for the time being.

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

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]

Related Attack Patterns

• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/111.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/462.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/467.html
• https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/62.html

References

• https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/firefox-rolls-out-total-cookie-protection-by-default-to-all-users-worldwide/
• https://github.com/Icinga/icingaweb2-module-director/security/advisories/GHSA-3mwp-5p5v-j6q3
• https://github.com/Icinga/icingaweb2/issues?q=is%3Aissue++is%3Aclosed+4979+4960+4947
• https://github.com/nbuchwitz/icingaweb2-module-map/pull/86
• https://support.apple.com/en-is/guide/safari/sfri11471/16.0
• https://www.chromium.org/updates/same-site/