Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in the web administration console in Apache Geronimo Application Server 2.1 throu
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 30/100)
- Public proof-of-concept code exists (Exploit-DB); there is no record of exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 11% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 95.8% of all records.
- Fixed version: org.apache.geronimo.plugins:console (Maven) 2.1.4.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to org.apache.geronimo.plugins:console (Maven) 2.1.4 or later.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in the web administration console in Apache Geronimo Application Server 2.1 through 2.1.3 allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that (1) change the web administration password, (2) upload applications, and perform unspecified other administrative actions, as demonstrated by (3) a Shutdown request to console/portal//Server/Shutdown.
- Published
- Apr 17, 2009
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 11.1% · 96th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-352
Report tools
Action score
30
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 27 / 40 · 6.8 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 3 / 30 · 11.1%
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- Proof of concept exists, no weaponized module
- A fix has been released
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| apache | geronimo | cpe:2.3:a:apache:geronimo |
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- apache geronimo2.1
- apache geronimo2.1.1
- apache geronimo2.1.2
- apache geronimo2.1.3
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maven | org.apache.geronimo.plugins:console | before 2.1.4 | 2.1.4 |
Same product
apache: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2011-5034Apache Geronimo 2.2.1 and earlier computes hash values for form parameters without restricting the ability to trigger hash collisions predic55Plan
- CVE-2008-5518Multiple directory traversal vulnerabilities in the web administration console in Apache Geronimo Application Server 2.1 through 2.1.3 on Wi48Plan
- CVE-2013-1777The JMX Remoting functionality in Apache Geronimo 3.x before 3.0.1, as used in IBM WebSphere Application Server (WAS) Community Edition 3.0.43Plan
- CVE-2007-4548The login method in LoginModule implementations in Apache Geronimo 2.0 does not throw FailedLoginException for failed logins, which allows r41Plan
- CVE-2007-5797SQLLoginModule in Apache Geronimo 2.0 through 2.1 does not throw an exception for a nonexistent username, which allows remote attackers to b31Monitor
- CVE-2006-0254Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in Apache Geronimo 1.0 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via27Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Maven:org.apache.geronimo.plugins:console | 2.1.4 | Package registry (OSV) |
Exploit status
Proof of concept available
A public proof of concept or detection signature exists. Exploit knowledge is out there; don't delay patching.
Evidence
- Exploit-DB entry ×1
Noroxi does not host or link to exploit code. Metasploit module names and Nuclei template ids are shown (names, not code); Exploit-DB entries and PoC repositories are given as counts only.
| Source | Kind | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Exploit-DB entry | remote | 2009-04-16 |
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
- First PoC-1 d
- Published
- TodayOct 14, 2026+6390 d
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
No known public program.
Source: bounty-targets-data (public HackerOne, Bugcrowd, Intigriti, YesWeHack listings).
Technical details
Attack conditions
If successful
- Confidentiality
- P · data can be read
- Integrity
- P · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- P · the service can be disrupted
- Attack complexity
- M
- Confidentiality impact
- P
- Integrity impact
- P
- Availability impact
- P
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-352 · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)CVSS vector
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
nvd-primary
Root cause
State-changing requests rely on the session cookie the browser sends automatically; nothing verifies that the request came from the user’s own page.
The bug in code
The whole CWE-352 classA representative example of this vulnerability class. Not the vendor's source code; it shows the faulty pattern and its fix.
Vulnerable
app.use(session({ cookie: { httpOnly: true } }));app.post("/account/address", updateAddress);Fixed
app.use(session({ cookie: { httpOnly: true, sameSite: "lax" } }));app.post("/account/address", csrfProtection, updateAddress);Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Change log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Show all references (5 more)Show less
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.