The REST API in F5 BIG-IQ Cloud, Device, and Security 4.4.0 and 4.5.0 before HF2 and ADC 4.5.0 before HF2, when configured for LDAP remote authentication and the LDAP server allows anonymous BIND operations, allows remote attackers to obtain an authentication token for arbitrary users by guessing an LDAP user account name.

The Single Sign-On (SSO) feature in F5 BIG-IP APM 11.x before 11.6.0 HF6 and BIG-IP Edge Gateway 11.0.0 through 11.3.0 might allow remote attackers to obtain sensitive SessionId information by leveraging access to the Location HTTP header in a redirect.

In versions 7.1.5-7.1.8, when a user connects to a VPN using BIG-IP Edge Client over an unsecure network, BIG-IP Edge Client responds to authentication requests over HTTP while sending probes for captive portal detection.

On BIG-IP ASM 11.6.1-11.6.5.1, under certain configurations, the BIG-IP system sends data plane traffic to back-end servers unencrypted, even when a Server SSL profile is applied.

In BIG-IP versions 15.1.0-15.1.0.4, 15.0.0-15.0.1.3, 14.1.0-14.1.2.3, 13.1.0-13.1.3.4, 12.1.0-12.1.5.1, and 11.6.1-11.6.5.2 and BIG-IQ versions 5.2.0-7.0.0, the host OpenSSH servers utilize keys of less than 2048 bits which are no longer considered secure.

On F5 Access for Android 3.x versions prior to 3.0.8, a Task Hijacking vulnerability exists in the F5 Access for Android application, which may allow an attacker to steal sensitive user information. Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated

SSL virtual servers in F5 BIG-IP systems 10.x before 10.2.4 HF9, 11.x before 11.2.1 HF12, 11.3.0 before HF10, 11.4.0 before HF8, 11.4.1 before HF5, 11.5.0 before HF5, and 11.5.1 before HF5, when used with third-party Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) accelerator cards, might allow remote attackers to have unspecified impact via a timing side-channel attack.

When APM 13.0.0-13.1.x is deployed as an OAuth Resource Server, APM becomes a client application to an external OAuth authorization server. In certain cases when communication between the BIG-IP APM and the OAuth authorization server is lost, APM may not display the intended message in the failure response

On BIG-IP versions 11.6.0-11.6.2 (fixed in 11.6.2 HF1), 12.0.0-12.1.2 HF1 (fixed in 12.1.2 HF2), or 13.0.0-13.0.0 HF2 (fixed in 13.0.0 HF3) a virtual server configured with a Client SSL profile may be vulnerable to an Adaptive Chosen Ciphertext attack (AKA Bleichenbacher attack) against RSA, which when exploited, may result in plaintext recovery of encrypted messages and/or a Man-in-the-middle (MiTM) attack, despite the attacker not having gained access to the server's private key itself, aka a ROBOT attack.

The SSL profiles component in F5 BIG-IP LTM, APM, and ASM 10.0.0 through 10.2.4 and 11.0.0 through 11.5.1, AAM 11.4.0 through 11.5.1, AFM 11.3.0 through 11.5.1, Analytics 11.0.0 through 11.5.1, Edge Gateway, WebAccelerator, and WOM 10.1.0 through 10.2.4 and 11.0.0 through 11.3.0, PEM 11.3.0 through 11.6.0, and PSM 10.0.0 through 10.2.4 and 11.0.0 through 11.4.1 and BIG-IQ Cloud and Security 4.0.0 through 4.4.0 and Device 4.2.0 through 4.4.0, when using TLS 1.x before TLS 1.2, does not properly check CBC padding bytes when terminating connections, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to obtain cleartext data via a padding-oracle attack, a variant of CVE-2014-3566 (aka POODLE). NOTE: the scope of this identifier is limited to the F5 implementation only. Other vulnerable implementations should receive their own CVE ID, since this is not a vulnerability within the design of TLS 1.x itself.

In F5 BIG-IP APM software version 13.0.0 and 12.1.2, under rare conditions, the BIG-IP APM system appends log details when responding to client requests. Details in the log file can vary; customers running debug mode logging with BIG-IP APM are at highest risk.

On versions 13.0.0-13.1.0.1, 12.1.0-12.1.4.1, 11.6.1-11.6.4, and 11.5.1-11.5.9, BIG-IP platforms where AVR, ASM, APM, PEM, AFM, and/or AAM is provisioned may leak sensitive data.

On BIG-IP 11.5.1-11.5.4, 11.6.1, and 12.1.0, a virtual server configured with a Client SSL profile may be vulnerable to a chosen ciphertext attack against CBC ciphers. When exploited, this may result in plaintext recovery of encrypted messages through a man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack, despite the attacker not having gained access to the server's private key itself. (CVE-2019-6593 also known as Zombie POODLE and GOLDENDOODLE.)

The HTTPS protocol, as used in unspecified web applications, can encrypt compressed data without properly obfuscating the length of the unencrypted data, which makes it easier for man-in-the-middle attackers to obtain plaintext secret values by observing length differences during a series of guesses in which a string in an HTTP request URL potentially matches an unknown string in an HTTP response body, aka a "BREACH" attack, a different issue than CVE-2012-4929.

NGINX before 1.17.7, with certain error_page configurations, allows HTTP request smuggling, as demonstrated by the ability of an attacker to read unauthorized web pages in environments where NGINX is being fronted by a load balancer.

If an application encounters a fatal protocol error and then calls SSL_shutdown() twice (once to send a close_notify, and once to receive one) then OpenSSL can respond differently to the calling application if a 0 byte record is received with invalid padding compared to if a 0 byte record is received with an invalid MAC. If the application then behaves differently based on that in a way that is detectable to the remote peer, then this amounts to a padding oracle that could be used to decrypt data. In order for this to be exploitable "non-stitched" ciphersuites must be in use. Stitched ciphersuites are optimised implementations of certain commonly used ciphersuites. Also the application must call SSL_shutdown() twice even if a protocol error has occurred (applications should not do this but some do anyway). Fixed in OpenSSL 1.0.2r (Affected 1.0.2-1.0.2q).

Web Management Console Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the web management console in F5 BIG-IP 9.4.3 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that create new administrators and execute shell commands, as demonstrated using tmui/Control/form.

A cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the APM webtop 11.2.1 or greater may allow attacker to force an APM webtop session to log out and require re-authentication.

In BIG-IP versions 15.0.0-15.1.0.3, 14.1.0-14.1.2.5, 13.1.0-13.1.3.3, 12.1.0-12.1.5.1, a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the Traffic Management User Interface (TMUI), also referred to as the Configuration utility, exists in an undisclosed page.

In versions 3.0.0-3.4.0, 2.0.0-2.9.0, and 1.0.1, there is insufficient cross-site request forgery (CSRF) protections for the NGINX Controller user interface.

In versions 15.1.0-15.1.0.4, 15.0.0-15.0.1.3, 14.1.0-14.1.2.6, 13.1.0-13.1.3.4, 12.1.0-12.1.5.1, and 11.6.1-11.6.5.1, BIG-IP ASM Configuration utility CSRF protection token can be reused multiple times.

In all versions,  BIG-IP and BIG-IQ are vulnerable to cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks through iControl SOAP.   Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated.

On BIG-IP (AFM, ASM) 14.1.0-14.1.0.5, 14.0.0-14.0.0.4, 13.0.0-13.1.1.4, 12.1.0-12.1.4, and 11.5.1-11.6.4, a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability in AFM feed list. In the worst case, an attacker can store a CSRF which results in code execution as the admin user. The level of user role which can perform this attack are resource administrator and administrator.

On BIG-IP ASM 11.5.1-11.5.8, 11.6.1-11.6.3, 12.1.0-12.1.3, 13.0.0-13.1.1.3, and 14.0.0-14.0.0.2, there is a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability in an ASM violation viewed in the Configuration utility. In the worst case, an attacker can store a CSRF which results in code execution as the admin user.

On BIG-IP Advanced WAF and BIG-IP ASM version 16.0.x before 16.0.1.2 and 15.1.x before 15.1.3 and NGINX App Protect on all versions before 3.5.0, when a cross-site request forgery (CSRF)-enabled policy is configured on a virtual server, an undisclosed HTML response may cause the bd process to terminate. Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated.

BIG-IP version 16.0.x before 16.0.1.2, 15.1.x before 15.1.3, 14.1.x before 14.1.4.2, 13.1.x before 13.1.4.1, and all versions of 12.1.x and 11.6.x and all versions of BIG-IQ 8.x, 7.x, and 6.x are vulnerable to cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks through iControl SOAP. Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated.

In BIG-IP versions 15.0.0-15.1.0.4, 14.1.0-14.1.2.6, 13.1.0-13.1.3.3, 12.1.0-12.1.5.1, and 11.6.1-11.6.5.2, iControl REST does not implement Cross Site Request Forgery protections for users which make use of Basic Authentication in a web browser.

All versions of Uffizio GPS Tracker may allow an attacker to perform unintended actions on behalf of a user.

### Impact It's possible to know if a user has or not an account in a wiki related to an email address, and which username(s) is actually tied to that email by forging a request to the Forgot username page. Note that since this page does not have a CSRF check it's quite easy to perform a lot of those requests. ### Patches This issue has been patched in XWiki 12.10.5 and 13.2RC1. Two different patches are provided: - a first one to fix the CSRF problem - a more complex one that now relies on sending an email for the Forgot username process. ### Workarounds It's possible to fix the problem without uprading by editing the ForgotUsername page in version below 13.x, to use the following code: https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/blob/69548c0320cbd772540cf4668743e69f879812cf/xwiki-platform-core/xwiki-platform-administration/xwiki-platform-administration-ui/src/main/resources/XWiki/ForgotUsername.xml#L39-L123 In version after 13.x it's also possible to edit manually the forgotusername.vm file, but it's really encouraged to upgrade the version here. ### References * https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-18384 * https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-18408 ### For more information If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: * Open an issue in [Jira XWiki](https://jira.xwiki.org) * Email us at [security ML](mailto:security@xwiki.org)

Google Monorail before 2018-05-04 has a Cross-Site Search (XS-Search) vulnerability because CSV downloads are affected by CSRF, and calculations of download times (for requests with an unsupported axis) can be used to obtain sensitive information about the content of bug reports.

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in AA-Team Wordpress Movies Bulk Importer movies importer allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Wordpress Movies Bulk Importer: from n/a through <= 1.0.

When a user explicitly requested Thunderbird to decrypt an inline OpenPGP message that was embedded in a text section of an email that was formatted and styled with HTML and CSS, then the decrypted contents were rendered in a context in which the CSS styles from the outer messages were active. If the user had additionally allowed loading of the remote content referenced by the outer email message, and the email was crafted by the sender using a combination of CSS rules and fonts and animations, then it was possible to extract the secret contents of the email. This vulnerability affects Thunderbird < 147.0.1 and Thunderbird < 140.7.1.

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in jegtheme JNews Paywall jnews-paywall allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects JNews Paywall: from n/a through < 12.0.1.

Subversion Plugin connects to a user-specified Subversion repository as part of form validation (e.g. to retrieve a list of tags). This functionality improperly checked permissions, allowing any user with Item/Build permission (but not Item/Configure) to connect to any web server or Subversion server and send credentials with a known ID, thereby possibly capturing them. Additionally, this functionality did not require POST requests be used, thereby allowing the above to be performed without direct access to Jenkins via Cross-Site Request Forgery attacks.

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Strategy11 Team Business Directory business-directory-plugin allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Business Directory: from n/a through <= 6.4.19.

The WP MultiTasking WordPress plugin through 0.1.12 does not have CSRF check when updating its Header, Footer and Body Script Settings, which could allow attackers to make logged admins perform such action via a CSRF attack

The WP MultiTasking WordPress plugin through 0.1.12 does not have CSRF check when updating its permalink suffix settings, which could allow attackers to make logged admins perform such action via a CSRF attack

The Atlassian Application Links plugin is vulnerable to cross-site request forgery (CSRF). The following versions are affected: all versions prior to 5.4.21, from version 6.0.0 before version 6.0.12, from version 6.1.0 before version 6.1.2, from version 7.0.0 before version 7.0.2, and from version 7.1.0 before version 7.1.3. The vulnerable plugin is used by Atlassian Jira Server and Data Center before version 8.7.0. An attacker could exploit this by tricking an administrative user into making malicious HTTP requests, allowing the attacker to enumerate hosts and open ports on the internal network where Jira server is present.

Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the TheCartPress eCommerce Shopping Cart (aka The Professional WordPress eCommerce Plugin) plugin for WordPress before 1.3.9.3 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that conduct directory traversal attacks via the tcp_box_path parameter in the checkout_editor_settings page to wp-admin/admin.php.

CSRF of synchronization form in Yandex Browser for desktop before version 16.6 could be used by remote attacker to steal saved data in browser profile.

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Ays Pro Quiz Maker quiz-maker allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Quiz Maker: from n/a through <= 6.7.0.82.

Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the wp_ajax_update_plugin function in wp-admin/includes/ajax-actions.php in WordPress before 4.6 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of subscribers for /dev/random read operations by leveraging a late call to the check_ajax_referer function, a related issue to CVE-2016-6896.

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in PSM Plugins SupportCandy supportcandy allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects SupportCandy: from n/a through <= 3.4.1.

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Rustaurius Ultimate FAQ ultimate-faqs allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Ultimate FAQ: from n/a through <= 2.4.3.

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Stiofan UsersWP userswp allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects UsersWP: from n/a through <= 1.2.48.

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Craig Hewitt Seriously Simple Podcasting seriously-simple-podcasting allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Seriously Simple Podcasting: from n/a through <= 3.13.0.