CVE-2018-7828
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 (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the 1st Gen. Pelco Sarix Enhanced Camera and Spectra Enhanced PTZ Camera when an authenticated user clicks a specially crafted malicious link while logged into the camera.
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 confidenceCross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Pelco 1st Gen Sarix Enhanced Camera and Spectra Enhanced PTZ Camera web interface. An authenticated user clicking a specially crafted malicious link can trigger unauthorized actions on the camera, as the application lacks proper CSRF token validation for state-changing requests.
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>= 2.11>= 2.11>= 2.11>= 2.11< 2.2.3.0< 2.2.3.0< 2.2.3.0< 2.2.3.0CVSS 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
- 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 the camera modelAccess the camera web interface and look for the model information, typically found in System or About settings. Alternatively, check the physical device label.Affected if The model is one of: D6220, D6220l, D6230, D6230l, Imes19 1i/1s/1p, or Ime119 1i
-
Check the firmware versionIn the camera web interface, navigate to System > About or System > Information to view the installed firmware version. Note the exact version number.Affected if Firmware version is >= 2.11 for D6220/D6220l/D6230/D6230l, OR firmware version is < 2.2.3.0 for Imes19 or Ime119 models
-
Verify web interface accessibilityConfirm the camera web interface is accessible on the network. CSRF attacks require the web interface to be reachable by potential attackers.Affected if The web interface is exposed and accessible from untrusted networks
-
Inspect form submissions for CSRF tokensLog into the camera web interface, then use browser developer tools or a proxy to examine a state-changing form (such as settings changes, PTZ controls, or user management). Check if the form includes a hidden CSRF token or anti-CSRF parameter.Affected if Forms lack CSRF token parameters and the device firmware falls within the affected version ranges
The device is affected if it is one of the listed models AND its firmware version falls within the vulnerable ranges AND the web interface lacks CSRF token validation on state-changing requests.
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 data2.2.3.0
Implement anti-CSRF tokens or same-site cookie attributes for all state-changing operations in the camera's web interface; consider adding CSRF token verification to form submissions and AJAX requests.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-7828 — 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-2018-7828 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