GHSA-4j3w-g62x-hrcp CVE-2008-0164 PYSEC-2008-14 PYSEC-2008-15
Plone Cross-site request forgery (CSRF)
High
PyPI
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- High · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.65%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 51.05% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
- Fix
3.1- Upgrade plone to this version or later
Description
Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in Plone CMS before 3.1 allow remote attackers to (1) add arbitrary accounts via the join_form page and (2) change the privileges of arbitrary groups via the prefs_groups_overview page.
Affected versions
PyPI
How to fix
Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.
plone PyPI → 3.1
- pip
pip install --upgrade "plone>=3.1"- poetry
poetry add "plone>=3.1"- uv
uv add "plone>=3.1"
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- None
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- High
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- None
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- None
CVSS 3.1 7.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
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.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: 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]
- Implementation: Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
- Architecture and Design: Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330). [REF-332]
- Architecture and Design: Identify especially dangerous operations. When the user performs a dangerous operation, send a separate confirmation request to ensure that the user intended to perform that operation.
- Architecture and Design: 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]
- Architecture and Design: Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.
- Implementation: Check the HTTP Referer header to see if the request originated from an expected page. This could break legitimate functionality, because users or proxies may have disabled sending the Referer for privacy reasons.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
- exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/41263
- github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/plone/PYSEC-2008-14.yaml
- github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/plone/PYSEC-2008-15.yaml
- plone.org/about/security/advisories/cve-2008-0164
- plone.org/products/plone-hotfix/releases/CVE-2008-0164
- secunia.com/advisories/29361
- securityreason.com/securityalert/3754
- procheckup.com/Hacking_Plone_CMS.pdf
- securityfocus.com/archive/1/489544/100/0/threaded
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-xg5p-8wg5-rhxm Phone information disclosure vulnerability | High | Also affects plone |
| GHSA-5xfx-55x4-j223 Cross-Frame Scripting vulnerability has been found on Plone CMS | High | Also affects plone |
| GHSA-47p5-p3jw-w78w Server-Side Request Forgery in Plone CMS | High | Also affects plone |
| GHSA-cvwc-g7fw-7xrj Plone XSS Vulnerability | Medium | Also affects plone |
| GHSA-pwgm-jvqv-6v8p Plone anonymous access to sub-objects in CMFEditions where KwAsAttributes classes were publishable | High | Also affects plone |
| GHSA-46f9-f8jm-mw2x Plone Cross-site Scripting vulnerability in the LiveSearch module | Medium | Also affects plone |
| GHSA-hjp5-hv33-q58g Plone credentials stored in session cookie | Medium | Also affects plone |
| GHSA-593c-j348-f3gv Plone Improper Session Management | High | Also affects plone |
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor