CVE-2024-51639
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 · uneditedCross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Hints Naver Blog naver-blog-api allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Naver Blog: from n/a through <= 1.0.
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 confidenceCSRF vulnerability in the naver-blog-api allows attackers to craft malicious requests that trick authenticated users into submitting unintended actions, leading to persistent XSS injection in Naver Blog.
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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify naver-blog-api presenceSearch for files, modules, or services named 'naver-blog-api' in your environment using file system searches (find / -name '*naver*blog*api*') or package managers (npm list, pip list, gem list depending on language)Affected if The naver-blog-api component is installed in your environment
-
Locate state-changing API endpointsReview the API source code or documentation to identify endpoints that perform state-changing operations (POST, PUT, DELETE methods) such as creating/updating/deleting blog posts, comments, or user settingsAffected if The API has endpoints that modify data (create, update, delete operations)
-
Inspect for anti-CSRF token implementationExamine the source code of state-changing endpoints to check if they implement anti-CSRF tokens. Look for token generation, validation logic, or middleware that verifies tokens on each request. Search for patterns like 'csrf', 'token', 'xsrf' in the codebaseAffected if State-changing endpoints lack anti-CSRF token validation or use predictable/weak token mechanisms
-
Check Origin/Referer header validationReview the API's request validation logic to determine if it validates the Origin or Referer headers to ensure requests originate from trusted sources. Look for header checks in middleware or request handlersAffected if The API does not validate Origin/Referer headers on state-changing requests
-
Verify XSS sanitization on persisted dataExamine how user input is handled when stored in the blog system. Check if input is sanitized/escaped before storage and when rendered. Look for XSS filter implementations or Content Security Policy headersAffected if User-supplied data is stored without proper sanitization, making XSS injection possible via CSRF-forged requests
You are affected if naver-blog-api is present and state-changing operations lack anti-CSRF token validation and Origin/Referer header checks, allowing attackers to inject persistent XSS through authenticated users.
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 for all state-changing operations and validate Origin/Referer headers to prevent cross-site request forgery attacks.
- Consultation3.0 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 $4,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-51639 — 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-2024-51639 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