CVE-2018-17869
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 · uneditedDASAN H660GW devices do not implement any CSRF protection mechanism.
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 confidenceDASAN H660GW GPON router devices do not implement any CSRF protection mechanism, allowing attackers to craft malicious requests that execute unintended actions when an authenticated user visits a crafted page.
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 dataall versionsCVSS 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.
-
Confirm device modelAccess the router's web interface or check device labeling/metadata to verify the model is Dasan H660GW GPON routerAffected if Device is a Dasan H660GW
-
Verify web management interface is enabledAccess the router's web interface (typically via HTTP/HTTPS on the LAN or WAN interface) and log in with administrative credentialsAffected if Web management interface is accessible and user can authenticate
-
Inspect HTML forms for CSRF tokensView the page source of state-changing forms (e.g., settings, configuration pages) and check if hidden input fields containing anti-CSRF tokens are present, or if there are any token-related parameters in form actionsAffected if No CSRF token fields (such as 'csrf_token', 'token', 'nonce', or similar) are found in the HTML forms
-
Check API requests for CSRF protectionUse browser developer tools or a proxy to capture requests when making configuration changes. Examine if the requests include any CSRF-related headers or parametersAffected if State-changing requests succeed without requiring any token or unique identifier
-
Test Origin/Referer validationSubmit a request to the web interface from an external or unauthorized origin and check if the server validates the Origin or Referer headersAffected if The router accepts requests from arbitrary origins without validation
If the device is a Dasan H660GW with an accessible web management interface that lacks CSRF tokens in forms and does not validate Origin/Referer headers, the environment is affected by this vulnerability.
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) for all state-changing operations in the device's web management interface and include proper origin/referer validation.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-17869 — 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-2018-17869 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