CVE-2009-1797
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedMultiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities on the Network Management Card (NMC) on American Power Conversion (APC) Switched Rack PDU (aka Rack Mount Power Distribution) devices and other devices allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of (1) administrator or (2) device users for requests that create new administrative users or have unspecified other impact.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceMultiple CSRF vulnerabilities in the Network Management Card (NMC) firmware on APC Switched Rack PDU devices allow remote attackers to forge authenticated requests by tricking administrators or device users into visiting malicious pages, enabling creation of new administrative accounts and other unauthorized actions.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE dataall versionsall versionsCVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Confirm device modelIdentify if the device is an APC Network Management Card or APC Switched Rack PDU by checking the hardware label, SNMP sysDescr, or web interface login page bannerAffected if Device is an APC Network Management Card or APC Switched Rack PDU with web interface enabled
-
Check web management interface statusAttempt to access the device web interface on typical ports 80/443 or check via SNMP for web service statusAffected if Web management interface is enabled and accessible over the network
-
Verify CSRF protection mechanismsExamine the device HTTP responses for anti-CSRF tokens or examine the configuration/settings menu for security token optionsAffected if No anti-CSRF tokens present in forms and no CSRF protection settings are configured
-
Review session cookie configurationCheck if the web interface uses SameSite cookie attributes by inspecting Set-Cookie headers from the deviceAffected if Cookies lack SameSite attributes or secure flags
-
Check Referer/Origin header validationIf device has logging, examine whether the device validates Referer or Origin headers on state-changing requestsAffected if Device does not validate Referer or Origin headers on administrative actions
A user is affected if they operate an APC Network Management Card or Switched Rack PDU with the web interface enabled and no CSRF protections configured.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataImplement anti-CSRF tokens in application logic, verify Origin/Referer headers on state-changing requests, apply SameSite cookie attributes, and deploy firmware updates from APC when available. Network-level compensating controls like WAF rules can also help block CSRF attacks.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,304.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-1797 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2009-1797 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data