CVE-2024-22601
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 · uneditedFlyCms v1.0 contains a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability via /system/score/scorerule_save
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 confidenceFlyCms v1.0 is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at the /system/score/scorerule_save endpoint. An attacker can craft a malicious page that forces an authenticated user's browser to submit a request to this endpoint, potentially allowing unauthorized modification of score rules without the user's consent. The high CVSS score suggests the exploitation could lead to significant privilege abuse within the scoring system.
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= 1.0CVSS 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.
-
Confirm FlyCms versionIdentify the installed FlyCms version by checking version files, about pages, or admin dashboard information. Compare against the affected version: 1.0Affected if FlyCms version 1.0 is confirmed to be installed
-
Locate scorerule_save endpointAccess the application's routing or navigate to /system/score/scorerule_save to confirm the endpoint exists and is accessibleAffected if The /system/score/scorerule_save endpoint is present in the application
-
Check form for anti-CSRF tokenSubmit a GET request to /system/score/scorerule_save and inspect the HTML form response. Look for a hidden input field containing a CSRF token or any token-like value in the form markupAffected if The form at scorerule_save lacks a hidden CSRF token field or synchronizer token pattern
-
Verify session cookie configurationLog in to the application and capture the session cookie headers. Inspect the Set-Cookie header for the session cookie and check if the SameSite attribute is set to Strict or LaxAffected if The session cookie has no SameSite attribute set or is set to None without secure flag
A user is affected if they run FlyCms v1.0 and the /system/score/scorerule_save endpoint lacks anti-CSRF tokens in its form and session cookies lack proper SameSite attributes.
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 all state-changing forms including scorerule_save, and configure SameSite cookie attributes for session cookies. Additionally, implement referrer/origin header validation as a defense-in-depth measure.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-22601 — 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-2024-22601 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