CVE-2014-3590
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 · uneditedVersions of Foreman as shipped with Red Hat Satellite 6 does not check for a correct CSRF token in the logout action. Therefore, an attacker can log out a user by having them view specially crafted content.
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 confidenceForeman as shipped with Red Hat Satellite 6 lacks CSRF token validation on the logout action, allowing attackers to force-logout users by tricking them into visiting specially crafted malicious content that triggers the logout request.
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= 6.0CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
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 Red Hat Satellite versionRun 'rpm -q rhel-satellite' or check /etc/redhat-release for Satellite versionAffected if Version is exactly 6.0 (rhel-satellite-6.0)
-
Verify Foreman is presentCheck if Foreman is installed: run 'rpm -q foreman' or check for /usr/share/foreman directoryAffected if Foreman package is installed as part of Satellite 6.0
-
Check logout controller for CSRF protectionInspect the Foreman logout controller source code (typically in app/controllers/users_controller.rb or logout controller) for 'protect_from_forgery' or 'verify' directives on the logout actionAffected if The logout action lacks CSRF token validation (no 'verify' or 'protect_from_forgery' applied to the logout method)
-
Verify CSRF token requirement in session configCheck Foreman's application controller for 'protect_from_forgery' declaration and ensure it applies to all actions including logoutAffected if CSRF protection is missing or excluded for the logout action
A user is affected if they run Red Hat Satellite 6.0 with Foreman and the logout action does not require CSRF token validation.
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 CSRF token validation on the logout action in Foreman to ensure requests originate from legitimate authenticated sessions.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,424.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-3590 — 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-2014-3590 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