CVE-2013-7107
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 · uneditedCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in cmd.cgi in Icinga 1.8.5, 1.9.4, 1.10.2, and earlier allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of users for unspecified commands via unspecified vectors, as demonstrated by bypassing authentication requirements for CVE-2013-7106.
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 confidenceCSRF vulnerability in cmd.cgi of Icinga allows remote attackers to hijack authenticated user sessions and execute unspecified commands by tricking authenticated users into visiting malicious pages. The vulnerability demonstrates bypassing authentication requirements for a related CVE.
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<= 1.10.2= 0.8.0= 0.8.1= 0.8.2= 0.8.3= 0.8.4= 1.0= 1.0.1= 1.0.2= 1.0.3= 1.2.0= 1.2.1CVSS 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.
-
Identify installed Icinga versionCheck the Icinga version file or look at the version information in the web interface (typically in the footer or about page). On Linux systems, check /usr/share/icinga/VERSION or similar version file if present.Affected if the installed version is <= 1.10.2 or matches any of these specific versions: 0.8.0, 0.8.1, 0.8.2, 0.8.3, 0.8.4, 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.2, 1.0.3, 1.2.0, 1.2.1
-
Locate cmd.cgi in the web directoryFind the cmd.cgi file in the Icinga web interface directory (commonly in /cgi-bin/ or the /icinga/cgi-bin/ path depending on your installation). Use a file search or check your web server configuration for the CGI script location.Affected if cmd.cgi exists and is accessible via the web interface
-
Verify anti-CSRF token implementation in cmd.cgiExamine the cmd.cgi source code or examine HTML forms served by cmd.cgi to check for the presence of a CSRF token field (often named 'token', 'csrf_token', or similar). Also check the server-side code in cmd.cgi to see if it validates tokens on state-changing requests.Affected if cmd.cgi lacks anti-CSRF token validation on state-changing requests (commands to modify monitoring state)
-
Confirm SameSite cookie attribute configurationCheck the Icinga or web server configuration for SameSite cookie attributes. Inspect the Set-Cookie headers when authenticating to see if SameSite attribute is set on session cookies.Affected if session cookies lack SameSite attribute or origin validation is not performed
You are affected if your Icinga version is within the affected range AND cmd.cgi does not implement anti-CSRF token validation on command requests.
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 (synchronizer token pattern) in cmd.cgi and validate the token on all state-changing requests. Additionally, implement SameSite cookie attributes and origin validation.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,480.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-7107 — 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-2013-7107 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