Skip to content

GHSA-76vr-72mv-mf3q CVE-2012-4431

Cross-Site Request Forgery in Apache Tomcat

Medium Maven
Severity
Medium
The publisher's own rating, not a CVSS score
Exploit chance (EPSS)
9.15%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 95.32% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
Fix
6.0.36
Upgrade org.apache.tomcat:tomcat to this version or later

Description

org/apache/catalina/filters/CsrfPreventionFilter.java in Apache Tomcat 6.x before 6.0.36 and 7.x before 7.0.32 allows remote attackers to bypass the cross-site request forgery (CSRF) protection mechanism via a request that lacks a session identifier.

Affected versions

Maven

PackageVulnerableFixed in
org.apache.tomcat:tomcat
>= 6.0.0, < 6.0.36
6.0.36
org.apache.tomcat:tomcat
>= 7.0.0, < 7.0.32
7.0.32

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.

org.apache.tomcat:tomcat Maven → 6.0.36

maven
<dependency><groupId>org.apache.tomcat</groupId><artifactId>tomcat</artifactId><version>6.0.36</version></dependency>
gradle
implementation("org.apache.tomcat:tomcat:6.0.36")

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

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-69r9-qgr7-g2wj
Apache Tomcat Missing Encryption of Sensitive Data vulnerability
High Known exploited Also affects org.apache.tomcat:tomcat
GHSA-h3x4-894j-xpx5
Apache Tomcat's FORM authentication process has an Incorrect Authorization vulnerability
Critical Also affects org.apache.tomcat:tomcat
GHSA-9xv2-5v5q-p794
Apache Tomcat's DIGEST authenticator has an Authentication Bypass by Capture-replay vulnerability
Critical Also affects org.apache.tomcat:tomcat
GHSA-gcx9-497g-6cp6
Apache Tomcat has an Improper Access Control, Incorrect Authorization vulnerability
Critical Also affects org.apache.tomcat:tomcat
GHSA-5m62-pw8w-7w9f
Apache Tomcat - Security constraints not correctly applied
Critical Also affects org.apache.tomcat:tomcat
GHSA-9m89-8frq-c98c
Apache Tomcat - AJP secret compared in non-constant time
Low Also affects org.apache.tomcat:tomcat
GHSA-5mp6-jrq3-r938
Apache Tomcat: LockOutRealm treats user names as case-sensitive
High Also affects org.apache.tomcat:tomcat
GHSA-h6fc-48rj-7qqh
Apache Tomcat - Digest authenticator will authenticate any unknown user
Critical Also affects org.apache.tomcat:tomcat
Is this in your code?

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