CVE-2024-7698
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 low privileged remote attacker can get access to CSRF tokens of higher privileged users which can be abused to mount CSRF attacks.
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 low-privileged remote attacker can access CSRF tokens intended for higher-privileged users. This token leakage allows the attacker to craft valid CSRF requests that appear to originate from privileged sessions, enabling unauthorized actions on behalf of those 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< 8.9.3< 8.9.3< 8.9.3< 8.9.3< 8.9.3< 8.9.3< 8.9.3< 8.9.3CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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 model and variantAccess the device's web management interface or CLI and locate the model number displayed in system information or device status. Look for TC-Mguard RS4000 or RS2000 with specific variant identifiers such as 4g, 3g, Vzw, or Att in the model name.Affected if The device model matches one of the affected products: TC-Mguard RS4000 4g Vzw VPN, RS4000 4g VPN, RS4000 4g Att VPN, RS4000 3g VPN, RS2000 4g Vzw VPN, RS2000 4g VPN, RS2000 4g Att VPN, or RS2000 3g VPN.
-
Check the installed firmware versionIn the device web interface, navigate to System > Firmware or Status > Device Information to view the current firmware version. Alternatively, use the CLI command 'show version' or 'system info' to retrieve the firmware version.Affected if The installed firmware version is lower than 8.9.3 (for example, 8.9.2, 8.8.x, or earlier).
-
Verify the web management interface is enabledCheck the device configuration for web interface settings, typically found under Network > HTTP/HTTPS or System Services. Confirm that the web-based management interface is active and accessible.Affected if The web management interface is enabled and accessible to the attacker, which is required for the CSRF token leakage to be exploitable.
-
Confirm multiple user privilege levels existReview the user accounts configured on the device under User Management or Access Control. Identify whether there are accounts with different privilege levels, such as admin versus read-only or user accounts.Affected if The device has multiple user accounts with varying privilege levels, allowing lower-privileged users to potentially access higher-privileged user CSRF tokens.
A user is affected if they are running any of the listed TC-Mguard models with firmware version 8.9.2 or lower, with the web interface enabled and multiple user privilege levels configured.
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.
dbcve · scoped8.9.3
Implement proper access controls to ensure CSRF tokens are only accessible to their intended privilege level, and validate that tokens are tied to the current user's session privileges.
Firmware 8.9.3 or later
- 1. Identify the current firmware version on the affected Tc Mguard device (RS2000 or RS4000 series) by accessing the device management interface or checking system information.
- 2. Download the firmware version 8.9.3 or later from the official Tc Mguard vendor support portal or trusted distribution channel.
- 3. Review the vendor's firmware upgrade instructions and ensure proper backup of device configuration.
- 4. Upload and apply the firmware update through the device's administrative interface or using the vendor-recommended upgrade procedure.
- 5. After upgrading, verify that the device is running firmware version 8.9.3 or higher.
- 6. Confirm that the CSRF token exposure vulnerability is resolved by testing or reviewing vendor release notes.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 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 $4,480.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-7698 — 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-2024-7698 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