CVE-2019-19667
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 CSRF vulnerability exists in the Block Clients component of Web File Manager in Rumpus FTP 8.2.9.1 that could allow an attacker to whitelist or block any IP address via RAPR/BlockedClients.html.
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 confidenceA CSRF vulnerability in the Block Clients component of Web File Manager (RAPR/BlockedClients.html) in Rumpus FTP 8.2.9.1 allows authenticated or semi-authenticated attackers to whitelist or block arbitrary IP addresses by tricking a user into submitting a malicious request.
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= 8.2.9.1CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
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 Rumpus FTP installation and versionLocate the Rumpus FTP application or service and determine its exact version number. Check the application binary, installer, or running service information.Affected if The installed version is Maxum Rumpus FTP 8.2.9.1 exactly.
-
Verify web interface component existsAccess the Rumpus FTP web interface and navigate to the Block Clients page (RAPR/BlockedClients.html) or check if this endpoint responds.Affected if The RAPR/BlockedClients.html endpoint is accessible and returns a response.
-
Inspect Block Clients form for anti-CSRF tokensLoad the Block Clients form in the web interface, view the page source (HTML), and search for a hidden token field, anti-CSRF parameter, or synchronizer token in the form markup.Affected if No anti-CSRF token field (such as a hidden input named 'token', 'csrf', or similar) is present in the Block Clients form HTML.
-
Check server-side token validationReview server-side logs or network traffic when submitting the Block Clients form to see if a token parameter is required and validated by the server.Affected if The server accepts and processes block/whitelist requests without requiring or validating an anti-CSRF token.
A user is affected if they are running Maxum Rumpus FTP version 8.2.9.1 with the web-based Block Clients interface accessible and no anti-CSRF token protection implemented on that form.
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) on the Block Clients form and validate these tokens on the server-side before processing whitelist/block requests.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-19667 — 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-2019-19667 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