CVE-2019-13924
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 vulnerability has been identified in SCALANCE S602 (All versions < V4.1), SCALANCE S612 (All versions < V4.1), SCALANCE S623 (All versions < V4.1), SCALANCE S627-2M (All versions < V4.1), SCALANCE X-200 switch family (incl. SIPLUS NET variants) (All versions < 5.2.4), SCALANCE X-200IRT switch family (incl. SIPLUS NET variants) (All versions < V5.5.0), SCALANCE X-200RNA switch family (All versions < V3.2.7), SCALANCE X-300 switch family (incl. X408 and SIPLUS NET variants) (All versions < 4.1.3). The device does not send the X-Frame-Option Header in the administrative web interface, which makes it vulnerable to Clickjacking attacks. The security vulnerability could be exploited by an attacker that is able to trick an administrative user with a valid session on the target device into clicking on a website controlled by the attacker. The vulnerability could allow an attacker to perform administrative actions via the web interface.
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 confidenceThe SCALANCE network devices (S602, S612, S623, S627-2M, X-200, X-200IRT, X-200RNA, X-300 families) do not send X-Frame-Options HTTP headers in responses from their administrative web interfaces. This allows the web interface to be embedded in iframes on attacker-controlled websites, enabling clickjacking attacks where authenticated administrators can be tricked into performing unintended administrative actions.
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< 5.2.4< 5.2.4< 5.2.4all versions< 5.2.4< 4.1.3< 4.1.3< 4.1.3CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify the SCALANCE device modelAccess the device's web administrative interface or check the device label/sticker, or query the device via SNMP (OID 1.3.6.1.2.1.1.1 for sysDescr) to confirm the exact model (S602, S612, S623, S627-2M, X-200, X-200IRT, X-200RNA, X-300, Xc 200, Xf 200, Xp 200, Xb 200, XR 300, XR 300WG)Affected if The device model is any of the following: S602, S612, S623, S627-2M, X-200, X-200IRT, X-200RNA, X-300, Xc 200, Xf 200, Xp 200, Xb 200, XR 300, or XR 300WG
-
Check the installed firmware versionLog into the web interface and navigate to System Information or Device Info page to view the firmware version, or use SNMP (OID 1.3.6.1.2.1.1.1.0) to retrieve it remotelyAffected if For Xc 200, Xf 200, Xp 200, Xb 200: version is below 5.2.4; for XR 300WG, X 300, XR 300: version is below 4.1.3; or for X 200IRT: any version
-
Inspect HTTP response headers from the web interfaceUse a browser developer tool (Network tab) or a command-line tool like 'curl -I https://<device-ip>/' to capture the HTTP response headers when accessing the administrative login page or any authenticated pageAffected if The X-Frame-Options header is absent from the HTTP response headers, meaning the server does not send DENY or SAMEORIGIN values
-
Verify iframe embeddability (optional confirmation)Create a simple HTML page with an <iframe> tag pointing to the device's web interface URL (e.g., <iframe src='https://<device-ip>/'>), then open the HTML page in a browser to confirm the page loads inside the iframeAffected if The device's web interface successfully renders inside the iframe without being blocked by the browser's X-Frame-Options enforcement
The environment is affected if the device is a SCALANCE model listed in the affected range and its web interface HTTP responses lack the X-Frame-Options header, allowing the interface to be embedded in iframes on attacker-controlled pages.
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 data4.1.35.2.4
Configure the affected devices' web servers to send X-Frame-Options: DENY or SAMEORIGIN headers in all HTTP responses to prevent clickjacking via iframe embedding.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-13924 — 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-2019-13924 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