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

CVE-2024-8065

HIGH · 8.1 CVSS v3.0 Published 2025-03-20
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
88/100
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
A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in version v1.4.1 of danswer-ai/danswer allows attackers to perform unauthorized actions in the context of the victim's browser. This includes connecting the victim's application with a malicious Slack Bot, inviting users, and deleting chats, among other actions. The application does not implement any CSRF protection, making it susceptible to these 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 · high confidence

This is a CSRF vulnerability in danswer v1.4.1 where the application lacks anti-CSRF tokens, SameSite cookie attributes, or origin validation. Attackers can craft malicious links that, when clicked by authenticated users, trigger unwanted state-changing requests (connecting malicious Slack bots, inviting users, deleting chats) in the context of the victim's session.

MitigationImplement CSRF protection by adding anti-CSRF tokens to all state-changing endpoints (POST/PUT/DELETE), configuring SameSite=Strict/Lax cookies for session cookies, and validating Origin/Referer headers 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
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/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 checks

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

  1. Identify danswer version
    Check the installed danswer version by inspecting the container image tag, docker-compose.yml, or running a command like 'pip show danswer' or checking the application startup logs for the version number
    Affected if The installed version is danswer v1.4.1 exactly, or falls within the 1.4.x lineage prior to any CSRF fix being applied
  2. Inspect session cookie SameSite attribute
    Log into danswer as a user, open browser developer tools (Application tab > Cookies), or use curl to capture cookies and inspect the 'Set-Cookie' headers for the session cookie. Look for 'SameSite=Strict' or 'SameSite=Lax' attribute
    Affected if The session cookie lacks SameSite attribute entirely, or has 'SameSite=None' without Secure flag, indicating no CSRF protection via cookie attributes
  3. Verify CSRF tokens on state-changing forms
    Log into danswer and navigate to settings pages that perform state changes (e.g., Slack integration, user invitation, chat deletion). Use browser developer tools to inspect the HTML forms or API requests. Check if hidden CSRF token fields are present in forms, or if tokens are included in request headers (X-CSRF-Token, X-XSRF-Token)
    Affected if State-changing endpoints (POST/PUT/DELETE) lack anti-CSRF tokens in form submissions or API requests, meaning no token-based CSRF protection exists
  4. Check Origin header validation on sensitive endpoints
    Send a crafted request with a mismatched or missing Origin header (e.g., Origin: http://attacker.com) to sensitive API endpoints (Slack bot connection, user invitation, chat deletion) using curl or Burp Suite. Observe if the request is rejected based on origin validation
    Affected if Requests with arbitrary Origin headers are accepted and processed without validation, indicating the application lacks origin-based CSRF protection

You are affected if running danswer v1.4.1 AND the session cookies lack SameSite attributes AND state-changing endpoints do not require anti-CSRF tokens AND the application does not validate Origin/Referer headers on sensitive 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 CSRF protection by adding anti-CSRF tokens to all state-changing endpoints (POST/PUT/DELETE), configuring SameSite=Strict/Lax cookies for session cookies, and validating Origin/Referer headers on sensitive requests.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation12.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
24.0 hours of engineering $4,200
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,720.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-8065 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

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-2024-8065 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