CVE-2024-3083
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 “CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)” can be exploited by remote attackers to perform state-changing operations with administrative privileges by luring authenticated victims into visiting a malicious web page.
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 confidenceThis is a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability affecting authenticated administrative users. Remote attackers can craft malicious web pages that, when visited by a logged-in admin, silently trigger unauthorized state-changing operations (e.g., configuration changes, account modifications, or privilege escalation) via the victim's active session.
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= 2.24CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/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 Proges Sensor Net Connect installationAccess the device web interface or check system information pages for the product name 'Proges Sensor Net Connect'Affected if The product is not Proges Sensor Net Connect or is a different product entirely
-
Determine firmware versionLocate the firmware version information in the device admin panel, system settings, or by checking the HTTP response headers/footer on any pageAffected if Firmware version displays as V2.24 (exactly version 2.24)
-
Verify anti-CSRF token presenceInspect the HTML source of forms that perform state-changing operations (configuration changes, user management). Look for hidden input fields containing random tokens or check if forms submit with a token parameterAffected if Forms lack anti-CSRF tokens and rely solely on session authentication
-
Check session cookie attributesInspect HTTP response headers for Set-Cookie directives. Verify if the session cookie has SameSite=Strict or SameSite=Lax attribute setAffected if Session cookie has no SameSite attribute or uses SameSite=None without secure flag
-
Test Origin/Referer validationSubmit a state-changing request with an arbitrary Origin header (e.g., from a different domain) and observe if the request is processed or rejectedAffected if Requests with mismatched Origin/Referer headers are accepted without validation
User is affected if running Proges Sensor Net Connect Firmware V2.24 and state-changing forms lack anti-CSRF tokens, session cookies lack SameSite attributes, and Origin/Referer headers are not validated.
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 endpoints, configure SameSite=Strict or SameSite=Lax cookies, and validate Origin/Referer headers to prevent cross-origin requests.
- 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-2024-3083 — 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-2024-3083 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