dbcve.org
Epolicy OrchestratorApplication · Mcafee

CVE-2019-3604

HIGH · 8.8 CVSS v3.0 Published 2019-02-01
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
95/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
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
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in McAfee ePO (legacy) Cloud allows unauthenticated users to perform unintended ePO actions using an authenticated user's session via unspecified vectors.

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 is a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in McAfee ePO (legacy) Cloud that allows unauthenticated attackers to trick authenticated users into performing unintended administrative actions within the ePO platform. The attacker exploits the trusted session of a logged-in user to send malicious requests without the user's knowledge or consent.

MitigationImplement anti-CSRF tokens (synchronizer token pattern) on all state-changing operations, validate Origin/Referer headers server-side, and configure SameSite cookies to restrict cross-origin cookie transmission.

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
Epolicy OrchestratorApplication
Affected:all versions

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
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 checks

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

  1. Verify McAfee ePO is installed
    Check for ePolicy Orchestrator installation by looking for the 'Apache' or 'Tomcat' services running on common ePO ports (8443, 443) or checking for the ePO installation directory at C:\Program Files\McAfee\ePolicy Orchestrator or /opt/McAfee/ePolicy Orchestrator
    Affected if McAfee ePolicy Orchestrator is installed and running in the environment
  2. Confirm ePO version
    Access the ePO console login page (typically https://server:8443/ or https://server:443/) and check the footer for version information, or run 'epoutil.exe version' from the ePO installation directory
    Affected if Any version of ePO is found - the advisory states all versions are affected
  3. Check for anti-CSRF token implementation
    Log into the ePO console and inspect the HTML source of state-changing forms (such as user creation, policy save, or system settings). Look for hidden input fields containing anti-CSRF tokens or similar unique tokens in POST requests
    Affected if No anti-CSRF tokens are present in state-changing forms or the tokens are missing/blank
  4. Verify SameSite cookie attribute
    Open browser developer tools, log into ePO, and examine the Set-Cookie headers in the response. Check if the session cookie has the SameSite attribute set to 'Strict' or 'Lax'
    Affected if SameSite attribute is missing, set to 'None', or not present on session cookies
  5. Check Referer/Origin header validation
    Use a proxy tool (such as Burp Suite or OWASP ZAP) to send a state-changing request with a missing or mismatched Referer or Origin header and observe if the request is accepted or rejected by the server
    Affected if The server accepts requests with missing or forged Referer/Origin headers for administrative actions

If McAfee ePO is installed and any of the following is true: the version cannot be determined, no anti-CSRF tokens exist in forms, SameSite cookies are not configured, or Referer/Origin validation is missing - the environment is likely affected by this CSRF vulnerability.

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

Implement anti-CSRF tokens (synchronizer token pattern) on all state-changing operations, validate Origin/Referer headers server-side, and configure SameSite cookies to restrict cross-origin cookie transmission.

Fix this in Epolicy Orchestrator Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation6.0 h
  • Implementation24.0 h
  • Testing12.0 h
  • Review / QA8.0 h
50.0 hours of engineering $8,760
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $14,016.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-3604 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

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-2019-3604 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