Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- A structured source references public exploit or proof-of-concept material.
- EPSS is 1.22% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceRed Hat, Inc. · etcd
High technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Debian, ubuntu findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.
A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.
| Distribution release | Source package | Vendor state | Fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debian trixietrixie · source | etcd | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 3.4.23-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian bookwormbookworm · source | etcd | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 3.4.23-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian forkyforky · source | etcd | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 3.4.23-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian sidsid · source | etcd | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 3.4.23-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · esm-apps | etcd | Under evaluationCanonical reports that the package might be affected and still needs evaluation or fixing. | Not published in this feed | Canonical Ubuntu Security ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
High technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Fix not verifiedA cross-site request forgery flaw was found in etcd 3.3.1 and earlier. An attacker can set up a website that tries to send a POST request to the etcd server and modify a key. Adding a key is done with PUT so it is theoretically safe (can't PUT from an HTML form or such) but POST allows creating in-order keys that an attacker can send.
A cross-site request forgery flaw was found in etcd 3.3.1 and earlier. An attacker can set up a website that tries to send a POST request to the etcd server and modify a key. Adding a key is done with PUT so it is theoretically safe (can't PUT from an HTML form or such) but POST allows creating in-order keys that an attacker can send.
The application accepts a state-changing browser request without a reliable anti-forgery check.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
A cross-site request forgery flaw was found in etcd 3.3.1 and earlier. An attacker can set up a website that tries to send a POST request to the etcd server and modify a key. Adding a key is done with PUT so it is theoretically safe (can't PUT from an HTML form or such) but POST allows creating in-order keys that an attacker can send.
The application accepts a state-changing browser request without a reliable anti-forgery check.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
A structured CVE source labels at least one public reference as exploit material. BlackTree has not independently validated that it is safe, reliable or weaponised.
CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF). The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.0: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 3 Apr 2018 · Last source change 5 Aug 2024, 03:51 UTC · CWE-352 · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.