Phaser 3320 FirmwareOperating system · Xerox

CVE-2019-13170

MEDIUM · 6.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2020-03-13
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
72/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges

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 · unedited
Some Xerox printers (such as the Phaser 3320 V53.006.16.000) did not implement any mechanism to avoid CSRF attacks. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability can lead to the takeover of a local account on the device.

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 confidence

This vulnerability is a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) flaw in Xerox Phaser 3320 and potentially other printer models. The device's web management interface lacks anti-CSRF tokens or protections, allowing attackers to trick authenticated users into unknowingly submitting malicious requests that can modify device settings or takeover local accounts.

MitigationContact Xerox support to verify if a firmware patch is available for this vulnerability. As a compensating control, restrict network access to the printer's web interface to trusted IPs only and use browser-based CSRF extensions when administering the device.

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
Phaser 3320 FirmwareOperating system
Affected:= v53.006.16.000

CVSS 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
None
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify the printer model
    Access the printer's web management interface by entering the printer's IP address in a web browser. Look for the device model name in the header or status page.
    Affected if The device is not a Xerox Phaser 3320 - this vulnerability only affects that specific model.
  2. Locate the firmware version
    In the web interface, navigate to the Status, System Information, or About page. Look for a field labeled Firmware Version, Software Version, or similar.
    Affected if Unable to retrieve the firmware version from the web interface - you need the version to determine if you are affected.
  3. Compare firmware version to affected release
    Check if the displayed firmware version is exactly v53.006.16.000. Note the exact version string including all numbers and punctuation.
    Affected if Firmware version equals v53.006.16.000 - only this exact version is listed as affected.
  4. Verify CSRF protection is absent (optional manual check)
    View the HTML source of a configuration form in the web interface. Look for hidden input fields with names like 'token', 'csrf', or 'nonce'. Also check if forms submit with a custom header like 'X-CSRF-Token'.
    Affected if No anti-CSRF tokens are present in HTML forms and no token is required in request headers - this confirms the vulnerable configuration described in the CVE.

You are affected only if you have a Xerox Phaser 3320 with firmware version exactly v53.006.16.000 and the web interface lacks CSRF token protections in its forms.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Contact Xerox support to verify if a firmware patch is available for this vulnerability. As a compensating control, restrict network access to the printer's web interface to trusted IPs only and use browser-based CSRF extensions when administering the device.

Fix this in Phaser 3320 Firmware Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation3.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
13.0 hours of engineering $2,300
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,680.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-13170 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2019-13170 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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