CVE-2019-19375
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 · uneditedIn Octopus Deploy before 2019.10.7, in a configuration where SSL offloading is enabled, the CSRF cookie was sometimes sent without the secure attribute. (The fix for this was backported to LTS versions 2019.6.14 and 2019.9.8.)
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 confidenceIn Octopus Deploy before 2019.10.7, when SSL offloading is configured, the CSRF cookie was intermittently sent without the 'secure' attribute. This flag ensures cookies are only transmitted over encrypted HTTPS connections. Without it, the CSRF token could be exposed over unencrypted HTTP connections.
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< 2019.10.7>= 2019.6.0, < 2019.6.14>= 2019.9.0, < 2019.9.8CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/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.
-
Check Octopus Deploy versionAccess the Octopus Deploy web UI, then navigate to Help > About, or query the Octopus API endpoint /api/status to retrieve the server version.Affected if Version is < 2019.10.7, or >= 2019.6.0 and < 2019.6.14, or >= 2019.9.0 and < 2019.9.8
-
Confirm SSL offloading is in useReview your Octopus Deploy configuration for SSL offloading settings, or check your reverse proxy/load balancer configuration that handles HTTPS termination in front of Octopus.Affected if SSL offloading (HTTPS termination at a proxy) is configured between clients and the Octopus server
-
Inspect CSRF cookie for secure flagLog into Octopus Deploy and use browser developer tools (Application > Cookies) or capture a response with a network debugger to examine the Set-Cookie header for the OctopusCsrf cookie.Affected if The CSRF cookie lacks the 'Secure' attribute in the cookie definition, indicating it could be transmitted over unencrypted HTTP
You are affected if your Octopus Deploy version falls within the vulnerable ranges AND SSL offloading is configured, and the CSRF cookie is missing the Secure flag.
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 data2019.6.142019.9.82019.10.7
Upgrade Octopus Deploy to version 2019.10.7 or later, or apply the backported patches (2019.6.14 or 2019.9.8 for LTS versions). Verify that the CSRF cookie now includes the secure flag when SSL offloading is in use.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-19375 — 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-2019-19375 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