Cisco Small Business 220 up to 1.0.1.0 cross-site request forgery

| CVSS Meta Temp Score | Current Exploit Price (≈) | CTI Interest Score |
|---|---|---|
| 8.6 | $0-$5k | 0.00 |
Summary
A vulnerability was found in Cisco Small Business 220 up to 1.0.1.0. It has been rated as problematic. The impacted element is an unknown function. This manipulation causes cross-site request forgery. This vulnerability is handled as CVE-2016-1470. The attack can be initiated remotely. There is not any exploit available. Upgrading the affected component is advised.
Details
A vulnerability has been found in Cisco Small Business 220 up to 1.0.1.0 and classified as critical. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown function. The manipulation with an unknown input leads to a cross-site request forgery vulnerability. The CWE definition for the vulnerability is CWE-352. The web application does not, or can not, sufficiently verify whether a well-formed, valid, consistent request was intentionally provided by the user who submitted the request. As an impact it is known to affect confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The summary by CVE is:
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the web-based management interface on Cisco Small Business 220 devices with firmware before 1.0.1.1 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users, aka Bug ID CSCuz76230.
The weakness was released 09/02/2016 with Synacktiv as CSCuz76230 as confirmed advisory (Website). The advisory is shared at tools.cisco.com. This vulnerability is known as CVE-2016-1470 since 01/04/2016. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploitation doesn't need any form of authentication. It demands that the victim is doing some kind of user interaction. Neither technical details nor an exploit are publicly available.
Upgrading to version 1.0.1.1 eliminates this vulnerability.
The vulnerability is also documented in the vulnerability database at SecurityFocus (BID 92709†). Entries connected to this vulnerability are available at VDB-91024, VDB-91023 and VDB-91022. If you want to get the best quality for vulnerability data then you always have to consider VulDB.
Product
Vendor
Name
Version
License
Website
- Vendor: https://www.cisco.com/
CPE 2.3
CPE 2.2
CVSSv4
VulDB Vector: 🔍VulDB Reliability: 🔍
CVSSv3
VulDB Meta Base Score: 8.8VulDB Meta Temp Score: 8.6
VulDB Base Score: 8.8
VulDB Temp Score: 8.4
VulDB Vector: 🔍
VulDB Reliability: 🔍
NVD Base Score: 8.8
NVD Vector: 🔍
CVSSv2
| AV | AC | Au | C | I | A |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| Vector | Complexity | Authentication | Confidentiality | Integrity | Availability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
VulDB Base Score: 🔍
VulDB Temp Score: 🔍
VulDB Reliability: 🔍
NVD Base Score: 🔍
Exploiting
Class: Cross-site request forgeryCWE: CWE-352 / CWE-862 / CWE-863
CAPEC: 🔍
ATT&CK: 🔍
Physical: No
Local: No
Remote: Yes
Availability: 🔍
Status: Not defined
EPSS Score: 🔍
EPSS Percentile: 🔍
Price Prediction: 🔍
Current Price Estimation: 🔍
| 0-Day | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Today | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
Threat Intelligence
Interest: 🔍Active Actors: 🔍
Active APT Groups: 🔍
Countermeasures
Recommended: UpgradeStatus: 🔍
Upgrade: Small Business 220 1.0.1.1
Timeline
01/04/2016 🔍08/31/2016 🔍
09/01/2016 🔍
09/02/2016 🔍
09/02/2016 🔍
09/14/2022 🔍
Sources
Vendor: cisco.comAdvisory: CSCuz76230
Organization: Synacktiv
Status: Confirmed
CVE: CVE-2016-1470 (🔍)
GCVE (CVE): GCVE-0-2016-1470
GCVE (VulDB): GCVE-100-91021
SecurityFocus: 92709 - Cisco Small Business 220 Series Smart Plus Switches Cross Site Request Forgery Vulnerability
SecurityTracker: 1036722
See also: 🔍
Entry
Created: 09/02/2016 11:06Updated: 09/14/2022 14:40
Changes: 09/02/2016 11:06 (52), 04/06/2019 18:10 (12), 09/14/2022 14:40 (3)
Complete: 🔍
Cache ID: 216::103
If you want to get the best quality for vulnerability data then you always have to consider VulDB.
No comments yet. Languages: en.
Please log in to comment.