CVE-2020-9346
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 · uneditedZoho ManageEngine Password Manager Pro 10.4 and prior has no protection against Cross-site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks, as demonstrated by changing a user's role.
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 confidenceZoho ManageEngine Password Manager Pro 10.4 and prior lacks CSRF (Cross-site Request Forgery) protection, allowing attackers to craft malicious requests that trick authenticated users into performing unintended administrative actions such as modifying user roles.
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< 10.4= 10.4CVSS 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:3.1/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify installed Password Manager Pro versionAccess the admin console or status page, typically at /pom/status or /apps/ppm/status, or check the application's about/version section in the management interfaceAffected if The installed version is 10.4 or any version prior to 10.4 (e.g., 10.3, 10.2, 10.1, 10.0)
-
Verify presence of anti-CSRF tokens in state-changing formsLog in as an administrative user, navigate to user management or role modification forms, and inspect HTML source to check for hidden token fields (such as 'csrfToken', 'csrf', or 'token' parameters) in POST requestsAffected if Forms performing administrative actions (user creation, role modification) lack hidden anti-CSRF token fields in their HTML
-
Check for CSRF token validation on form submissionsSubmit a POST request to an administrative endpoint (such as user role modification) without the expected CSRF token and observe whether the request is processed or rejectedAffected if Administrative state-changing operations succeed without requiring a valid CSRF token parameter
-
Inspect Origin and Referer header validationSubmit administrative requests with missing or mismatched Origin/Referer headers (simulating a cross-origin attack) and check if the server accepts or rejects themAffected if The application accepts and processes administrative requests from unexpected origins without validating Origin or Referer headers
A user is affected if their Password Manager Pro installation is version 10.4 or prior AND the application lacks anti-CSRF tokens in administrative forms or fails to validate request origins, allowing attackers to trick authenticated admins into performing unintended actions.
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 data10.4
Implement anti-CSRF tokens (synchronizer token pattern) for all state-changing operations and validate Origin/Referer headers to prevent cross-site request forgery attacks.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-9346 — 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-2020-9346 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