Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)Weakness · CWE-352

CVE-2024-32958

HIGH · 7.1 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-04-24
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
78/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges

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 · unedited
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Giorgos Sarigiannidis Slash Admin allows Cross-Site Scripting (XSS).This issue affects Slash Admin: from n/a through 3.8.1.

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 confidence

A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Slash Admin versions up to 3.8.1 allows attackers to perform actions on behalf of authenticated administrators, leading to stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS). This occurs because the application lacks proper CSRF token validation, enabling malicious requests that can inject XSS payloads into admin-accessible functions.

MitigationImplement anti-CSRF tokens for all state-changing operations and validate Origin/Referer headers; validate and sanitize all user-supplied input to prevent the resulting XSS.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

CVSS 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
Changed
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
Low

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Verify Slash Admin is installed
    Identify if the Slash Admin package or application is present in your environment by checking installed packages, dependencies, or the application codebase for references to 'Slash Admin'.
    Affected if Slash Admin is present in the environment.
  2. Determine installed version
    Locate and read the version information for Slash Admin (typically in a composer.json, package.json, or version file) and compare it to the affected range: any version up to and including 3.8.1.
    Affected if The installed version is 3.8.1 or lower.
  3. Inspect state-changing forms for CSRF tokens
    Examine forms in the admin interface that perform state-changing operations (such as settings updates, user management, or content creation). Check the HTML source for the presence of a CSRF token field or anti-CSRF mechanism in each form.
    Affected if State-changing admin forms lack CSRF token validation or anti-CSRF protection.
  4. Check admin input handling for XSS sanitization
    Review the server-side code that processes user-supplied input in admin-accessible functions. Determine if input validation and sanitization (such as HTML encoding or content security policy) are applied before storing or displaying data.
    Affected if Admin functions accept and store user input without proper sanitization, allowing stored XSS.
  5. Verify Origin and Referer header validation
    Inspect the server-side request handling code to determine if Origin or Referer headers are validated for state-changing requests, providing an additional CSRF defense layer.
    Affected if The application does not validate Origin or Referer headers on state-changing admin operations.

A user is affected if Slash Admin version 3.8.1 or lower is installed and the application lacks CSRF protection on admin forms, enabling stored XSS via malicious requests.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement anti-CSRF tokens for all state-changing operations and validate Origin/Referer headers; validate and sanitize all user-supplied input to prevent the resulting XSS.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation12.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
25.0 hours of engineering $4,400
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,040.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-32958 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-32958 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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