CVE-2026-44925
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 InfoScale v.9.1.3 Operations Manager (VIOM) allows an attacker to force the user with an active session into clicking a malicious HTML link, which triggers unintended modifications on VIOM web application without the user's knowledge.
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 confidenceCross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in InfoScale v.9.1.3 Operations Manager (VIOM) allows an attacker to trick an authenticated user into clicking a malicious HTML link, causing the user's browser to send unauthorized requests that perform unintended modifications on the VIOM web application.
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< 9.1.3CVSS 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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/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 installed VIOM versionAccess the VIOM web interface or check the product version through the admin console. Typically found in Help > About or the version information page in the management console.Affected if The installed version is below 9.1.3 (any version prior to and including the patch releases before 9.1.3).
-
Verify the web management interface is accessibleConfirm the VIOM web application is running and reachable via browser or HTTP tools at the configured management port.Affected if The web interface is exposed and accessible to users or attackers who could trigger the CSRF condition.
-
Inspect forms for anti-CSRF token presenceLog into the VIOM web interface and examine the HTML source of forms that perform state-changing operations (such as configuration changes, user management, or system settings). Look for hidden input fields containing token values or other CSRF protection mechanisms.Affected if Forms used for state-changing operations lack anti-CSRF tokens or unique session identifiers.
-
Check session cookie attributesUse browser developer tools or a proxy to capture a VIOM session cookie and inspect the Set-Cookie header or cookie properties for the SameSite attribute.Affected if Session cookies do not have the SameSite=Strict or SameSite=Lax attribute set, or the SameSite attribute is missing entirely.
-
Verify Referer/Origin header validationAttempt to submit a state-changing request (such as a form submission) with a mismatched or missing Referer/Origin header using an HTTP proxy. Observe whether the request is accepted or rejected by the server.Affected if The application accepts state-changing requests without validating that the Referer/Origin header matches the expected origin.
A user is affected if the installed VIOM version is below 9.1.3 AND the web interface is accessible AND the application lacks anti-CSRF tokens on state-changing forms or does not validate request origins.
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 · scoped9.1.3
Implement anti-CSRF tokens (synchronizer token pattern) on all state-changing operations, configure SameSite cookie attributes, and validate Origin/Referer headers to prevent CSRF attacks.
Infoscale Operations Manager 9.1.3 or later
- Identify the current version of InfoScale Operations Manager (VIOM) in use
- Backup all VIOM configurations and data before proceeding with the upgrade
- Download Infoscale Operations Manager version 9.1.3 or later from the Veritas support portal (supportinfoscale.cloud.com or www.veritas.com)
- Stop the VIOM services following the documented shutdown procedure
- Install the upgrade to version 9.1.3 following the official upgrade documentation
- Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the VIOM version
- Restart VIOM services in the correct sequence
- Validate that the VIOM web interface is accessible and functional
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation24.0 h
- Testing16.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $15,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-44925 — 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-2026-44925 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