CVE-2018-1790
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 · uneditedIBM Financial Transaction Manager for Digital Payments for Multi-Platform 3.0.2 is vulnerable to cross-site request forgery which could allow an attacker to execute malicious and unauthorized actions transmitted from a user that the website trusts. IBM X-Force ID: 148944.
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 confidenceIBM Financial Transaction Manager for Digital Payments for Multi-Platform 3.0.2 is vulnerable to cross-site request forgery (CSRF). This allows an attacker to craft malicious requests that trick authenticated users into performing unintended actions (like fund transfers or configuration changes) without their knowledge, exploiting the trust the application places in user browsers.
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>= 3.0.2.0, <= 3.0.2.1CVSS 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
- 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 installed version of IBM Financial Transaction ManagerLocate the version information in the application deployment, typically found in the installation directory, manifest files, or administrative console. Common locations include: installation_dir/version.info, the IBM WebSphere/Console admin interface, or the application's about page.Affected if The installed version is 3.0.2.0 or 3.0.2.1 (falls within the range 3.0.2.0 to 3.0.2.1)
-
Confirm the Digital Payments module is deployed and accessibleVerify the FTM Digital Payments web interface is accessible and operational. This is required for the CSRF vulnerability to be exploitable.Affected if The Digital Payments module is running and users authenticate to it
-
Inspect forms for anti-CSRF token implementationUse browser developer tools or a web proxy to intercept requests when submitting state-changing forms (such as fund transfers, configuration changes, or user management). Examine HTML forms for the presence of anti-CSRF tokens in hidden fields.Affected if Forms lack anti-CSRF tokens (synchronizer tokens) in the HTML and no SameSite cookie attributes are set
-
Verify SameSite cookie attributes on sensitive sessionsInspect session cookies Set-Cookie headers and current cookie attributes via browser developer tools. Check if SameSite=Strict or SameSite=Lax is configured.Affected if Cookies do not have SameSite attributes configured or are set to SameSite=None without Secure flag
-
Check Origin and Referer header validationSubmit a state-changing request with a mismatched or missing Origin/Referer header (using a tool like Burp Suite Repeater) and observe if the request is accepted or rejected.Affected if Requests with missing or mismatched Origin/Referer headers are processed without rejection, indicating lack of header validation
The environment is affected if IBM Financial Transaction Manager Digital Payments version 3.0.2.0 or 3.0.2.1 is running and the application lacks anti-CSRF tokens in forms, SameSite cookie attributes, and Origin/Referer header validation for sensitive operations.
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 and configure SameSite cookie attributes. Additionally, validate the Origin and Referer headers on sensitive requests.
- Consultation4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-1790 — 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-2018-1790 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