CVE-2017-5943
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 · uneditedRequest Tracker (RT) 4.x before 4.0.25, 4.2.x before 4.2.14, and 4.4.x before 4.4.2 allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information about cross-site request forgery (CSRF) verification tokens via a crafted URL.
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 confidenceRequest Tracker versions 4.x before 4.0.25, 4.2.x before 4.2.14, and 4.4.x before 4.4.2 contain an information disclosure vulnerability where crafted URLs allow remote attackers to obtain CSRF verification tokens. This token disclosure could enable subsequent cross-site request forgery attacks against authenticated users.
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= 4.0.0= 4.0.1= 4.0.2= 4.0.3= 4.0.4= 4.0.5= 4.0.6= 4.0.7= 4.0.8= 4.0.9= 4.0.10= 4.0.11CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/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.
-
Identify Request Tracker versionLocate the RT version file (typically /opt/rt4/lib/RT.pm, /usr/local/lib/perl5/RT.pm, or check the About page in the web interface under 'System Configuration' > 'About'). Extract the version number from the $VERSION variable.Affected if The installed version is 4.0.0 through 4.0.24, any 4.2.x before 4.2.14, or any 4.4.x before 4.4.2.
-
Confirm web interface is enabledVerify the Request Tracker web server (mod_perl, FastCGI, or standalone) is running and accessible. Check for running httpd/nginx processes or test connectivity to the RT login page.Affected if The web interface is exposed and accepts authenticated sessions.
-
Verify authentication is configuredCheck RT_SiteConfig.pm for @AutoLoginSecondaryGroups or $WebSessionClass settings. Confirm that user authentication (local, LDAP, or external) is enabled in the configuration.Affected if Users can authenticate to RT, as the token disclosure targets authenticated sessions.
-
Check for CSRF token handlingReview whether the web server logs or application logs show unusual URL patterns that might indicate token leakage. Examine the RT configuration for CSRF token enforcement settings.Affected if CSRF tokens are in use but potentially exposed through crafted URL parameters.
If the installed Request Tracker version falls within 4.0.0-4.0.24, 4.2.x before 4.2.14, or 4.4.x before 4.4.2 and the web interface with user authentication is enabled, the environment is vulnerable to CSRF token disclosure via crafted URLs.
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 dataUpgrade to Request Tracker 4.0.25, 4.2.14, 4.4.2 or later to patch the token disclosure vulnerability.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-5943 — 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-2017-5943 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