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

CVE-2024-54205

HIGH · 7.1 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-12-06
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 Paloma Paloma Widget postman-widget allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Paloma Widget: from n/a through <= 1.14.

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 Paloma Widget's postman-widget component allows attackers to induce authenticated users to perform unintended state-changing requests. The 7.1 CVSS indicates significant risk due to the ability to trick users into executing unwanted actions.

MitigationImplement anti-CSRF tokens (synchronizer token pattern) on all state-changing endpoints and configure SameSite cookies to prevent cross-origin requests. Additionally, validate the Origin or Referer header on sensitive requests.

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. Identify postman-widget installation
    Search for Paloma Widget's postman-widget component in your application's codebase or dependency manifest (package.json, requirements.txt, pom.xml, or similar). Look for references to 'postman-widget' or 'paloma-widget'.
    Affected if The postman-widget component is present in your environment and handles authenticated user sessions.
  2. Locate state-changing endpoint handlers
    Review the postman-widget source code or API routes for functions that modify data: POST, PUT, DELETE, or PATCH requests that change application state (e.g., creating/updating/deleting resources, changing user settings, submitting forms).
    Affected if State-changing endpoints exist within or integrated with the postman-widget component.
  3. Inspect for anti-CSRF token implementation
    Examine the state-changing endpoint handlers or their associated HTML forms/frontend code. Search for presence of CSRF tokens, anti-CSRF headers, or synchronizer token pattern implementation. Check if endpoints validate a token parameter or header.
    Affected if No anti-CSRF token validation is found on the state-changing endpoints handled by or exposed via postman-widget.
  4. Check SameSite cookie attributes
    Review your application's session cookie configuration. Inspect HTTP response headers for Set-Cookie directives and verify if the SameSite attribute is set to 'Strict' or 'Lax'. Check your session/cookie configuration files.
    Affected if Session cookies used with postman-widget do not have SameSite attribute set, or it is set to 'None' without secure flag.
  5. Verify Origin/Referer header validation
    Inspect the server-side code for state-changing requests. Look for validation logic that checks the Origin or Referer HTTP headers before processing state-changing operations.
    Affected if State-changing endpoints do not validate Origin or Referer headers to confirm request origin.

Your environment is affected if Paloma Widget's postman-widget component is present, handles authenticated sessions, and its state-changing endpoints lack anti-CSRF token validation, SameSite cookie protection, and Origin/Referer header checks.

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 (synchronizer token pattern) on all state-changing endpoints and configure SameSite cookies to prevent cross-origin requests. Additionally, validate the Origin or Referer header on sensitive requests.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
17.0 hours of engineering $3,000
Get help mitigating

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-54205 — 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-2024-54205 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