Axigen Mail Server before 10.5.57 and 10.6.x before 10.6.26 contains a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the WebAdmin interface through improper handling of the _s (breadcrumb) parameter. The application accepts state-changing requests via the GET method and automatically processes base64-encoded commands queued in the _s parameter immediately after administrator authentication. Attackers can craft malicious URLs that, when clicked by administrators, execute arbitrary administrative actions upon login without further user interaction, including creating rogue administrator accounts or modifying critical server configurations.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Axigen_mail_server | Axigen | 10.3.0 (including) | 10.5.57 (excluding) |
| Axigen_mail_server | Axigen | 10.6.0 (including) | 10.6.26 (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 [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]
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