Prime Network RegistrarApplication · Cisco
CVE-2020-3148
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 in the web-based interface of Cisco Prime Network Registrar (CPNR) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to conduct a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attack on an affected system. The vulnerability is due to insufficient CSRF protections in the web-based interface. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by persuading a targeted user, with an active administrative session on the affected device, to click a malicious link. A successful exploit could allow an attacker to change the device's configuration, which could include the ability to edit or create user accounts of any privilege level. Some changes to the device's configuration could negatively impact the availability of networking services for other devices on networks managed by CPNR.
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 confidenceCisco Prime Network Registrar contains a CSRF vulnerability in its web-based management interface. An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this by tricking an authenticated administrator into clicking a malicious link, allowing the attacker to perform configuration changes including creating or modifying user accounts at any privilege level.
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
Prime Network RegistrarApplication
< 10.1CVSS 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
- High
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/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.
-
Confirm Cisco Prime Network Registrar is installedLocate the installation directory or check for the Cisco Prime Network Registrar web service running on the system. Typical install paths include /opt/cpnr or C:\Program Files\Cisco\Prime Network Registrar. Check running services for 'cpnr' or 'Network Registrar' processes.Affected if The product is present on the system
-
Identify the installed versionCheck the version of Cisco Prime Network Registrar installed. This is typically found in the web interface login page, in the installation directory version file, or by querying the installed package/service.Affected if The version is below 10.1 (any version number starting with 9.x or earlier)
-
Verify the web-based management interface is enabledConfirm the web management interface is accessible. Try accessing the interface via browser on the configured port (commonly 443 or 8443 for HTTPS). The interface is required for the CSRF vulnerability to be exploitable.Affected if The web management interface is accessible and responds to requests
-
Check for CSRF protection in web formsLog into the web management interface and examine HTML forms (especially those for user account management, configuration changes, or administrative functions). Inspect the page source to verify if anti-CSRF tokens (hidden form fields) are present in each form.Affected if Forms lack hidden CSRF token fields or do not include synchronizer token patterns
-
Verify SameSite cookie attributesUsing browser developer tools or a proxy, capture a session cookie from the web interface and inspect the Set-Cookie headers. Check if the SameSite attribute is set to 'Strict' or 'Lax', or if it is absent.Affected if SameSite attribute is missing or set to 'None' on session cookies
A user is affected if Cisco Prime Network Registrar is installed with a version below 10.1 and the web-based management interface is accessible without proper CSRF token protection on forms.
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 data10.1
Implement anti-CSRF tokens (synchronizer token pattern) in all web interface forms and validate tokens on server-side processing. Additionally, implement SameSite cookie attributes and consider adding referrer-based validation for administrative actions.
Fix this in Prime Network Registrar
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-3148 — 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-2020-3148 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