Enterprise MrgOperating system · Redhat
CVE-2013-4405
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 in the web interface for cumin in Red Hat Enterprise MRG Grid 2.4 allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of cumin users for unspecified requests.
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 · moderate confidenceMultiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities exist in the web interface of cumin in Red Hat Enterprise MRG Grid 2.4. The lack of anti-CSRF tokens or proper request validation allows remote attackers to forge requests on behalf of authenticated users, hijacking their session for unspecified 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 data
Enterprise MrgOperating system
= 2.4CVSS 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.
-
Check if cumin package is installedRun 'rpm -qa | grep -i cumin' or 'yum list installed cumin' to identify if the cumin package is present on the systemAffected if The cumin package version equals 2.4 as shown in the package listing
-
Verify the cumin web interface is enabledCheck the cumin configuration files in /etc/cumin/ or /opt/mrg/ and look for web server settings, or check if the cumin web service is listening on a port (typically 8000 or similar) using 'netstat -tlnp | grep -i cumin' or 'ss -tlnp | grep -i cumin'Affected if The cumin web interface is running and accessible on a network port, making it exposed to CSRF attacks
-
Inspect web forms for anti-CSRF tokensAccess the cumin web interface and view the HTML source of forms (right-click > View Page Source), looking for hidden input fields with names like 'csrf_token', 'csrf', 'token', or similar anti-CSRF mechanismsAffected if Forms lack hidden anti-CSRF token fields, meaning requests can be forged without validation
-
Check for Origin/Referer header validationReview the cumin web application configuration or source code (if accessible) for validation logic that checks the Origin or Referer HTTP headers on state-changing requests like POST, PUT, DELETE operationsAffected if No Origin or Referer header validation is implemented, allowing requests from arbitrary origins to be processed
A user is affected if cumin version 2.4 is installed with its web interface enabled and the application lacks anti-CSRF tokens in forms and does not validate Origin/Referer headers.
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 on all forms and validate Origin/Referer headers for state-changing requests. For legacy systems where patches are unavailable, consider deploying a web application firewall (WAF) to mitigate CSRF attacks.
Fix this in Enterprise Mrg
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-4405 — 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-2013-4405 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