ID CVE-2009-2964
Summary Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in SquirrelMail 1.4.19 and earlier, and NaSMail before 1.7, allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims via features such as send message and change preferences, related to (1) functions/mailbox_display.php, (2) src/addrbook_search_html.php, (3) src/addressbook.php, (4) src/compose.php, (5) src/folders.php, (6) src/folders_create.php, (7) src/folders_delete.php, (8) src/folders_rename_do.php, (9) src/folders_rename_getname.php, (10) src/folders_subscribe.php, (11) src/move_messages.php, (12) src/options.php, (13) src/options_highlight.php, (14) src/options_identities.php, (15) src/options_order.php, (16) src/search.php, and (17) src/vcard.php.
References
Vulnerable Configurations
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4_rc1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4_rc1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4:rc1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4:rc1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.9a
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.9a
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.9
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.9
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.8.4fc6
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.8.4fc6
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.8
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.8
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.7
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.7
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.6_rc1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.6_rc1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.6_cvs
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.6_cvs
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.6:rc1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.6:rc1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.6
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.6
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.5_rc1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.5_rc1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.5
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.5
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.4_rc1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.4_rc1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.4:rc1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.4:rc1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.4
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.4
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.3aa
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.3aa
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.3a
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.3a
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.3_rc1:r1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.3_rc1:r1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.3_rc1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.3_rc1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.3_r3
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.3_r3
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.3:rc1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.3:rc1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.3:r3
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.3:r3
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.3
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.3
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.2-r5
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.2-r5
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.2-r4
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.2-r4
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.2-r3
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.2-r3
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.2-r2
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.2-r2
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.2-r1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.2-r1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.2
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.2
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.17
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.17
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.16
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.16
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.15_rc1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.15_rc1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.15:rc1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.15:rc1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.15
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.15
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.12
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.12
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.11
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.11
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.10a
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.10a
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.10
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.10
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.0_rc2a
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.0_rc2a
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.0_rc1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.0_rc1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.0:rc2a
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.0:rc2a
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.0:rc1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.0:rc1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.0-r1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.0-r1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.0
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.0
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.3.2
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.3.2
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.3.1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.3.1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.3.0
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.3.0
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.9
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.9
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.8
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.8
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.7
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.7
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.6-rc1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.6-rc1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.6
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.6
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.5
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.5
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.4
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.4
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.3
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.3
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.2
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.2
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.11
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.11
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.10
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.10
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.0_rc3
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.0_rc3
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.0:rc3
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.0:rc3
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.0
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2.0
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.2
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.1.3
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.1.3
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.1.2
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.1.2
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.1.1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.1.1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.1.0
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.1.0
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0pre3
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0pre3
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0pre2
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0pre2
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0pre1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0pre1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0.6
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0.6
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0.5
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0.5
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0.4
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0.4
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0.3
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0.3
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0.2
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0.2
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0.1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0.1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.0
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.1.2
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.1.2
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.1.1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:0.1.1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.18
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.18
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.15rc1
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.15rc1
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.13
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.13
  • cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.19
    cpe:2.3:a:squirrelmail:squirrelmail:1.4.19
CVSS
Base: 6.8 (as of 25-08-2009 - 14:19)
Impact:
Exploitability:
CWE CWE-352
CAPEC
  • JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking)
    An attacker targets a system that uses JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) as a transport mechanism between the client and the server (common in Web 2.0 systems using AJAX) to steal possibly confidential information transmitted from the server back to the client inside the JSON object by taking advantage of the loophole in the browser's Same Origin Policy that does not prohibit JavaScript from one website to be included and executed in the context of another website. An attacker gets the victim to visit his or her malicious page that contains a script tag whose source points to the vulnerable system with a URL that requests a response from the server containing a JSON object with possibly confidential information. The malicious page also contains malicious code to capture the JSON object returned by the server before any other processing on it can take place, typically by overriding the JavaScript function used to create new objects. This hook allows the malicious code to get access to the creation of each object and transmit the possibly sensitive contents of the captured JSON object to the attackers' server. There is nothing in the browser's security model to prevent the attackers' malicious JavaScript code (originating from attacker's domain) to set up an environment (as described above) to intercept a JSON object response (coming from the vulnerable target system's domain), read its contents and transmit to the attackers' controlled site. The same origin policy protects the domain object model (DOM), but not the JSON.
  • Cross-Domain Search Timing
    An attacker initiates cross domain HTTP / GET requests and times the server responses. The timing of these responses may leak important information on what is happening on the server. Browser's same origin policy prevents the attacker from directly reading the server responses (in the absence of any other weaknesses), but does not prevent the attacker from timing the responses to requests that the attacker issued cross domain. For GET requests an attacker could for instance leverage the "img" tag in conjunction with "onload() / onerror()" javascript events. For the POST requests, an attacker could leverage the "iframe" element and leverage the "onload()" event. There is nothing in the current browser security model that prevents an attacker to use these methods to time responses to the attackers' cross domain requests. The timing for these responses leaks information. For instance, if a victim has an active session with their online e-mail account, an attacker could issue search requests in the victim's mailbox. While the attacker is not able to view the responses, based on the timings of the responses, the attacker could ask yes / no questions as to the content of victim's e-mails, who the victim e-mailed, when, etc. This is but one example; There are other scenarios where an attacker could infer potentially sensitive information from cross domain requests by timing the responses while asking the right questions that leak information.
  • Cross Site Identification
    An attacker harvests identifying information about a victim via an active session that the victim's browser has with a social networking site. A victim may have the social networking site open in one tab or perhaps is simply using the "remember me" feature to keep his or her session with the social networking site active. An attacker induces a payload to execute in the victim's browser that transparently to the victim initiates a request to the social networking site (e.g., via available social network site APIs) to retrieve identifying information about a victim. While some of this information may be public, the attacker is able to harvest this information in context and may use it for further attacks on the user (e.g., spear phishing). In one example of an attack, an attacker may post a malicious posting that contains an image with an embedded link. The link actually requests identifying information from the social networking site. A victim who views the malicious posting in his or her browser will have sent identifying information to the attacker, as long as the victim had an active session with the social networking site. There are many other ways in which the attacker may get the payload to execute in the victim's browser mainly by finding a way to hide it in some reputable site that the victim visits. The attacker could also send the link to the victim in an e-mail and trick the victim into clicking on the link. This attack is basically a cross site request forgery attack with two main differences. First, there is no action that is performed on behalf of the user aside from harvesting information. So standard CSRF protection may not work in this situation. Second, what is important in this attack pattern is the nature of the data being harvested, which is identifying information that can be obtained and used in context. This real time harvesting of identifying information can be used as a prelude for launching real time targeted social engineering attacks on the victim.
  • Cross Site Request Forgery (aka Session Riding)
    An attacker crafts malicious web links and distributes them (via web pages, email, etc.), typically in a targeted manner, hoping to induce users to click on the link and execute the malicious action against some third-party application. If successful, the action embedded in the malicious link will be processed and accepted by the targeted application with the users' privilege level. This type of attack leverages the persistence and implicit trust placed in user session cookies by many web applications today. In such an architecture, once the user authenticates to an application and a session cookie is created on the user's system, all following transactions for that session are authenticated using that cookie including potential actions initiated by an attacker and simply "riding" the existing session cookie.
Access
VectorComplexityAuthentication
NETWORK MEDIUM NONE
Impact
ConfidentialityIntegrityAvailability
PARTIAL PARTIAL PARTIAL
nessus via4
  • NASL family Oracle Linux Local Security Checks
    NASL id ORACLELINUX_ELSA-2009-1490.NASL
    description From Red Hat Security Advisory 2009:1490 : An updated squirrelmail package that fixes several security issues is now available for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3, 4, and 5. This update has been rated as having moderate security impact by the Red Hat Security Response Team. SquirrelMail is a standards-based webmail package written in PHP. Form submissions in SquirrelMail did not implement protection against Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks. If a remote attacker tricked a user into visiting a malicious web page, the attacker could hijack that user's authentication, inject malicious content into that user's preferences, or possibly send mail without that user's permission. (CVE-2009-2964) Users of SquirrelMail should upgrade to this updated package, which contains a backported patch to correct these issues.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2019-01-02
    plugin id 67938
    published 2013-07-12
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=67938
    title Oracle Linux 3 / 4 / 5 : squirrelmail (ELSA-2009-1490)
  • NASL family Fedora Local Security Checks
    NASL id FEDORA_2009-8797.NASL
    description - Implemented page referal verification mechanism. (Secunia Advisory SA34627) - Implemented security token system. (Secunia Advisory SA34627) Note that Tenable Network Security has extracted the preceding description block directly from the Fedora security advisory. Tenable has attempted to automatically clean and format it as much as possible without introducing additional issues.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2015-10-21
    plugin id 40678
    published 2009-08-24
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=40678
    title Fedora 10 : squirrelmail-1.4.19-2.fc10 (2009-8797)
  • NASL family MacOS X Local Security Checks
    NASL id MACOSX_SECUPD2010-004.NASL
    description The remote host is running a version of Mac OS X 10.5 that does not have Security Update 2010-004 applied. This security update contains fixes for the following components : - CUPS - DesktopServices - Flash Player plug-in - Folder Manager - iChat - ImageIO - Kerberos - Kernel - libcurl - Network Authorization - Ruby - SMB File Server - SquirrelMail - Wiki Server
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-07-14
    plugin id 47024
    published 2010-06-15
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=47024
    title Mac OS X Multiple Vulnerabilities (Security Update 2010-004)
  • NASL family Scientific Linux Local Security Checks
    NASL id SL_20091008_SQUIRRELMAIL_ON_SL3_X.NASL
    description CVE-2009-2964 squirrelmail: CSRF issues in all forms Form submissions in SquirrelMail did not implement protection against Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks. If a remote attacker tricked a user into visiting a malicious web page, the attacker could hijack that user's authentication, inject malicious content into that user's preferences, or possibly send mail without that user's permission. (CVE-2009-2964)
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2019-01-02
    plugin id 60676
    published 2012-08-01
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=60676
    title Scientific Linux Security Update : squirrelmail on SL3.x, SL4.x, SL5.x i386/x86_64
  • NASL family Red Hat Local Security Checks
    NASL id REDHAT-RHSA-2009-1490.NASL
    description An updated squirrelmail package that fixes several security issues is now available for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3, 4, and 5. This update has been rated as having moderate security impact by the Red Hat Security Response Team. SquirrelMail is a standards-based webmail package written in PHP. Form submissions in SquirrelMail did not implement protection against Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks. If a remote attacker tricked a user into visiting a malicious web page, the attacker could hijack that user's authentication, inject malicious content into that user's preferences, or possibly send mail without that user's permission. (CVE-2009-2964) Users of SquirrelMail should upgrade to this updated package, which contains a backported patch to correct these issues.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2019-01-02
    plugin id 42077
    published 2009-10-09
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=42077
    title RHEL 3 / 4 / 5 : squirrelmail (RHSA-2009:1490)
  • NASL family Fedora Local Security Checks
    NASL id FEDORA_2009-8822.NASL
    description - Implemented page referal verification mechanism. (Secunia Advisory SA34627) - Implemented security token system. (Secunia Advisory SA34627) Note that Tenable Network Security has extracted the preceding description block directly from the Fedora security advisory. Tenable has attempted to automatically clean and format it as much as possible without introducing additional issues.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2015-10-21
    plugin id 40686
    published 2009-08-24
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=40686
    title Fedora 11 : squirrelmail-1.4.19-2.fc11 (2009-8822)
  • NASL family MacOS X Local Security Checks
    NASL id MACOSX_10_6_4.NASL
    description The remote host is running a version of Mac OS X 10.6.x that is prior to 10.6.4. Mac OS X 10.6.4 contains security fixes for the following components : - CUPS - DesktopServices - Flash Player plug-in - Folder Manager - Help Viewer - iChat - ImageIO - Kerberos - Kernel - libcurl - Network Authorization - Open Directory - Printer Setup - Printing - Ruby - SMB File Server - SquirrelMail - Wiki Server
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-07-14
    plugin id 47023
    published 2010-06-15
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=47023
    title Mac OS X 10.6.x < 10.6.4 Multiple Vulnerabilities
  • NASL family Debian Local Security Checks
    NASL id DEBIAN_DSA-2091.NASL
    description SquirrelMail, a webmail application, does not employ a user-specific token for webforms. This allows a remote attacker to perform a Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attack. The attacker may hijack the authentication of unspecified victims and send messages or change user preferences among other actions, by tricking the victim into following a link controlled by the offender. In addition, a denial-of-service was fixed, which could be triggered when a password containing 8-bit characters was used to log in (CVE-2010-2813 ).
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-11-10
    plugin id 48344
    published 2010-08-17
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=48344
    title Debian DSA-2091-1 : squirrelmail - No user-specific token implemented
  • NASL family CentOS Local Security Checks
    NASL id CENTOS_RHSA-2009-1490.NASL
    description An updated squirrelmail package that fixes several security issues is now available for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3, 4, and 5. This update has been rated as having moderate security impact by the Red Hat Security Response Team. SquirrelMail is a standards-based webmail package written in PHP. Form submissions in SquirrelMail did not implement protection against Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks. If a remote attacker tricked a user into visiting a malicious web page, the attacker could hijack that user's authentication, inject malicious content into that user's preferences, or possibly send mail without that user's permission. (CVE-2009-2964) Users of SquirrelMail should upgrade to this updated package, which contains a backported patch to correct these issues.
    last seen 2019-02-21
    modified 2018-11-28
    plugin id 42071
    published 2009-10-09
    reporter Tenable
    source https://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=single&id=42071
    title CentOS 3 / 4 : squirrelmail (CESA-2009:1490)
oval via4
accepted 2013-04-29T04:07:35.514-04:00
class vulnerability
contributors
  • name Aharon Chernin
    organization SCAP.com, LLC
  • name Dragos Prisaca
    organization G2, Inc.
definition_extensions
  • comment The operating system installed on the system is Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:11782
  • comment CentOS Linux 3.x
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:16651
  • comment The operating system installed on the system is Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:11831
  • comment CentOS Linux 4.x
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:16636
  • comment Oracle Linux 4.x
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:15990
  • comment The operating system installed on the system is Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:11414
  • comment The operating system installed on the system is CentOS Linux 5.x
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:15802
  • comment Oracle Linux 5.x
    oval oval:org.mitre.oval:def:15459
description (14) src/options_identities.php, (15) src/options_order.php, (16) src/search.php, and (17) src/vcard.php.
family unix
id oval:org.mitre.oval:def:10668
status accepted
submitted 2010-07-09T03:56:16-04:00
title (14) src/options_identities.php, (15) src/options_order.php, (16) src/search.php, and (17) src/vcard.php.
version 24
redhat via4
advisories
bugzilla
id 517312
title CVE-2009-2964 squirrelmail: CSRF issues in all forms
oval
OR
  • AND
    • comment Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 is installed
      oval oval:com.redhat.rhsa:tst:20060015001
    • comment squirrelmail is earlier than 0:1.4.8-16.el3
      oval oval:com.redhat.rhsa:tst:20091490002
    • comment squirrelmail is signed with Red Hat master key
      oval oval:com.redhat.rhsa:tst:20070022003
  • AND
    • comment Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 is installed
      oval oval:com.redhat.rhsa:tst:20060016001
    • comment squirrelmail is earlier than 0:1.4.8-5.el4_8.8
      oval oval:com.redhat.rhsa:tst:20091490005
    • comment squirrelmail is signed with Red Hat master key
      oval oval:com.redhat.rhsa:tst:20070022003
  • AND
    • comment Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 is installed
      oval oval:com.redhat.rhsa:tst:20070055001
    • comment squirrelmail is earlier than 0:1.4.8-5.el5_4.10
      oval oval:com.redhat.rhsa:tst:20091490007
    • comment squirrelmail is signed with Red Hat redhatrelease key
      oval oval:com.redhat.rhsa:tst:20070358008
rhsa
id RHSA-2009:1490
released 2009-10-08
severity Moderate
title RHSA-2009:1490: squirrelmail security update (Moderate)
rpms
  • squirrelmail-0:1.4.8-16.el3
  • squirrelmail-0:1.4.8-5.el4_8.8
  • squirrelmail-0:1.4.8-5.el5_4.10
refmap via4
apple APPLE-SA-2010-06-15-1
bid 36196
confirm
debian DSA-2091
fedora
  • FEDORA-2009-8797
  • FEDORA-2009-8822
jvn JVN#30881447
jvndb JVNDB-2009-002207
mandriva MDVSA-2009:222
osvdb
  • 57001
  • 60469
secunia
  • 34627
  • 36363
  • 37415
  • 40220
  • 40964
vupen
  • ADV-2009-2262
  • ADV-2009-3315
  • ADV-2010-1481
  • ADV-2010-2080
xf squirrelmail-unspecified-csrf(52406)
Last major update 14-01-2011 - 01:35
Published 25-08-2009 - 13:30
Last modified 18-09-2017 - 21:29
Back to Top