Skip to content

GHSA-fcwg-45jh-5qhf CVE-2017-18903 GO-2026-4305

Mattermost Server vulnerable to CSRF if CORS is enabled

High Go
Severity
8.8 / 10
High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.43%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 37.08% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
Fix
3.9.2
Upgrade github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server to this version or later

Description

An issue was discovered in Mattermost Server before 4.0.0, 3.10.2, and 3.9.2. CSRF can occur if CORS is enabled.

Affected versions

Go

PackageVulnerableFixed in
github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server
< 3.9.2
3.9.2
github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server
>= 3.10.0-rc1, < 3.10.2
3.10.2
github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server
< 3.9.2+incompatible
>= 3.10.0+incompatible, < 3.10.2+incompatible
3.9.2+incompatible
3.10.2+incompatible

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.

github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server Go → 3.9.2

go
go get github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server@v3.9.2 && go mod tidy

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.8

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

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-xmfh-3ccg-c9fx
Mattermost has an Incorrect Authorization issue
Low Also affects github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server
GHSA-h998-hxxj-8q83
Mattermost doesn't invalidate cached authentication state for active WebSocket connections during global session revocation
Medium Also affects github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server
GHSA-g5vr-6pgg-74qv
Mattermost doesn't enforce bot-specific permission checks on the user active status endpoint
Low Also affects github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server
GHSA-jqgv-39mg-7c2r
Mattermost doesn't authenticate Atlassian Connect installed callbacks, allowing a remote unauthenticated attacker to inject a rogue sharedSecret
Medium Also affects github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server
GHSA-mxq2-5jpg-7474
Mattermost doesn't validate channel ownership of an existing subscription before applying edits
Medium Also affects github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server
GHSA-2g8v-grq3-hq2g
Mattermost doesn't enforce administrator authorization on the {{setDefaultInstance}} call within the {{/gitlab connect}} command handler
Medium Also affects github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server
GHSA-6hxm-w4hv-vgvw
Mattermost doesn't require role-management authorization when setting the scheme_admin flag on group syncable link and patch endpoints
High Also affects github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server
GHSA-9p44-r552-4wp9
Mattermost doesn't sanitize the Remote Cluster API response on PATCH operations
Medium Also affects github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server
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