CVE-2017-7423
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 · uneditedA Cross-Site Request Forgery (CWE-352) vulnerability in esfadmingui in Micro Focus Enterprise Developer and Enterprise Server 2.3, 2.3 Update 1 before Hotfix 8, and 2.3 Update 2 before Hotfix 9 allows remote unauthenticated attackers to forge requests, if this component is configured. This includes creating new privileged credentials, resulting in privilege elevation (CWE-275). Note esfadmingui is not enabled by default.
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 confidenceCross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the esfadmingui administrative interface of Micro Focus Enterprise Developer and Enterprise Server 2.3 allows remote unauthenticated attackers to forge requests. Successful exploitation enables attackers to create new privileged credentials, resulting in privilege elevation. The affected component is not enabled by default.
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= 2.3= 2.3CVSS 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.
-
Verify product version is 2.3Check the installed version of Micro Focus Enterprise Developer or Enterprise Server using the product's version information utility or about dialogAffected if Version is exactly 2.3 (not a later version with the fix)
-
Confirm esfadmingui component is installedLocate the esfadmingui administrative interface files or installation directory for the Enterprise Developer or Enterprise Server installationAffected if The esfadmingui component files exist on the system
-
Determine if esfadmingui is enabledCheck the configuration or service settings to see if the esfadmingui administrative web interface is currently active and accessibleAffected if The esfadmingui administrative interface is enabled and running
-
Test for CSRF vulnerabilityInspect the esfadmingui administrative forms to verify whether anti-CSRF tokens or CSRF protections are implemented on the web interface endpointsAffected if Anti-CSRF tokens are NOT present on administrative forms
You are affected if you are running version 2.3 of Enterprise Developer or Enterprise Server AND have the esfadmingui administrative interface enabled without CSRF protection.
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 dataDisable the esfadmingui component if not in use; if required, apply the vendor hotfixes (Hotfix 8 for versions 2.3/2.3 Update 1, Hotfix 9 for 2.3 Update 2) and implement anti-CSRF tokens on all administrative forms.
- 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-2017-7423 — 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-2017-7423 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