CVE-2023-40021
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 · uneditedOppia is an online learning platform. When comparing a received CSRF token against the expected token, Oppia uses the string equality operator (`==`), which is not safe against timing attacks. By repeatedly submitting invalid tokens, an attacker can brute-force the expected CSRF token character by character. Once they have recovered the token, they can then submit a forged request on behalf of a logged-in user and execute privileged actions on that user's behalf. In particular the function to validate received CSRF tokens is at `oppia.core.controllers.base.CsrfTokenManager.is_csrf_token_valid`. An attacker who can lure a logged-in Oppia user to a malicious website can perform any change on Oppia that the user is authorized to do, including changing profile information; creating, deleting, and changing explorations; etc. Note that the attacker cannot change a user's login credentials. An attack would need to complete within 1 second because every second, the time used in computing the token changes. This issue has been addressed in commit `b89bf80837` which has been included in release `3.3.2-hotfix-2`. Users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability.
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 analysisA detailed technical summary for this CVE is being prepared.
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>= 1.1.0, < 3.3.2= 3.3.2CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
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.
dbcve · scoped3.3.2
3.3.2-hotfix-2
- Check current Oppia version using 'python -c "from oppia import version; print(version.__version__)"' or checking the version file
- Backup the entire Oppia installation and database before upgrading
- Update to version 3.3.2-hotfix-2 or later by pulling the latest code from the repository or using the release package
- Restart the Oppia server to apply the changes
- Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the version number
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-40021 — 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-2023-40021 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