CVE-2024-53684
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 cross-site request forgery (csrf) vulnerability exists in the WEBVIEW-M functionality of Socomec DIRIS Digiware M-70 1.6.9. A specially crafted HTTP request can lead to unauthorized access. An attacker can stage a malicious webpage to trigger 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 analysis · moderate confidenceA cross-site request forgery vulnerability exists in the WEBVIEW-M web interface of Socomec DIRIS Digiware M-70 power monitoring devices version 1.6.9. Attackers can exploit this by hosting malicious webpages that trigger unauthorized HTTP requests toward the device's WEBVIEW-M functionality, potentially allowing unauthorized actions on behalf of authenticated users.
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= 1.6.9CVSS 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.
-
Identify the device modelAccess the device's web interface or use the device's management console to confirm the model is Socomec DIRIS Digiware M-70Affected if The device is not a Socomec DIRIS Digiware M-70 unit
-
Check the installed firmware versionNavigate to the device's web interface settings or system information page to determine the firmware version, or use the device's CLI or management software to query the firmware versionAffected if The firmware version is exactly 1.6.9
-
Verify WEBVIEW-M interface is enabledCheck the device configuration to confirm the WEBVIEW-M web interface is enabled and accessible on the networkAffected if WEBVIEW-M interface is enabled and reachable
-
Inspect state-changing endpoints for anti-CSRF tokensUse a web proxy or browser developer tools to capture HTTP POST requests sent to WEBVIEW-M endpoints that perform configuration changes or actions; examine whether each request includes a CSRF token parameter or headerAffected if POST requests to WEBVIEW-M state-changing endpoints lack anti-CSRF token parameters or headers
-
Check cookie SameSite attributeUsing browser developer tools or a web proxy, inspect the Set-Cookie headers from the WEBVIEW-M interface to verify if cookies have the SameSite attribute set to Strict or LaxAffected if Cookies from WEBVIEW-M lack SameSite attribute or have it set to None without Secure flag
You are affected if your device is a Socomec DIRIS Digiware M-70 running firmware 1.6.9 with the WEBVIEW-M interface enabled and state-changing endpoints lack anti-CSRF protection mechanisms.
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 token protection (synchronizer token pattern) on all state-changing WEBVIEW-M endpoints, configure SameSite cookies, and validate the Origin/Referer headers on POST requests.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $7,968.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-53684 — 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-2024-53684 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