Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- A structured source references public exploit or proof-of-concept material.
- EPSS is 0.77% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2023
CVE-2023-40021High confidence
Timing Attack Reveals CSRF Tokens in oppia
oppia · oppia
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-49JP-PJC3-2532 ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
5.3MediumCVSS 3.1
Within 7 days
Patch availableMedium technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityMedium→Operational priority:High, raised one band.upgradedsince 3 Oct 2024
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Increase monitoring for the attack path and post-exploitation behaviour described in the report.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs oppia oppia and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Medium technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Patch available01
What, why and how
Oppia is an online learning platform. When comparing a received CSRF token against the expected token, Oppia uses the string equality operator (`==`), which is not safe against timing attacks. By repeatedly submitting invalid tokens, an attacker can brute-force the expected CSRF token character by character. Once they have recovered the token, they can then submit a forged request on behalf of a logged-in user and execute privileged actions on that user's behalf. In particular the function to validate received CSRF tokens is at `oppia.core.controllers.base.CsrfTokenManager.is_csrf_token_valid`. An attacker who can lure a logged-in Oppia user to a malicious website can perform any change on Oppia that the user is authorized to do, including changing profile information; creating, deleting, and changing explorations; etc. Note that the attacker cannot change a user's login credentials. An attack would need to complete within 1 second because every second, the time used in computing the token changes. This issue has been addressed in commit `b89bf80837` which has been included in release `3.3.2-hotfix-2`. Users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability.
What
Oppia is an online learning platform. When comparing a received CSRF token against the expected token, Oppia uses the string equality operator (`==`), which is not safe against timing attacks. By repeatedly submitting invalid tokens, an attacker can brute-force the expected CSRF token character by character. Once they have recovered the token, they can then submit a forged request on behalf of a logged-in user and execute privileged actions on that user's behalf. In particular the function to validate received CSRF tokens is at `oppia.core.controllers.base.CsrfTokenManager.is_csrf_token_valid`. An attacker who can lure a logged-in Oppia user to a malicious website can perform any change on Oppia that the user is authorized to do, including changing profile information; creating, deleting, and changing explorations; etc. Note that the attacker cannot change a user's login credentials. An attack would need to complete within 1 second because every second, the time used in computing the token changes. This issue has been addressed in commit `b89bf80837` which has been included in release `3.3.2-hotfix-2`. Users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability.
Why
The product behaves differently or sends different responses under different circumstances in a way that is observable to an unauthorized actor.
How
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.
What
Oppia is an online learning platform. When comparing a received CSRF token against the expected token, Oppia uses the string equality operator (`==`), which is not safe against timing attacks. By repeatedly submitting invalid tokens, an attacker can brute-force the expected CSRF token character by character. Once they have recovered the token, they can then submit a forged request on behalf of a logged-in user and execute privileged actions on that user's behalf. In particular the function to validate received CSRF tokens is at `oppia.core.controllers.base.CsrfTokenManager.is_csrf_token_valid`. An attacker who can lure a logged-in Oppia user to a malicious website can perform any change on Oppia that the user is authorized to do, including changing profile information; creating, deleting, and changing explorations; etc. Note that the attacker cannot change a user's login credentials. An attack would need to complete within 1 second because every second, the time used in computing the token changes. This issue has been addressed in commit `b89bf80837` which has been included in release `3.3.2-hotfix-2`. Users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability.
Why
The product behaves differently or sends different responses under different circumstances in a way that is observable to an unauthorized actor.
How
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.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material Reference recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.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.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Observable Discrepancy → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- Required interaction required
- Attack complexity
- High: exploitation depends on specific conditions
- Security boundary
- Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-203 ↗
CWE-203: Observable Discrepancy. The product behaves differently or sends different responses under different circumstances in a way that is observable to an unauthorized actor.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACHighAttack complexity: Successful exploitation depends on specific conditions outside the attacker's direct control.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UIRequiredUser interaction: Another user must perform an action for exploitation to succeed.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CNoneConfidentiality impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- Stolen credentials, tokens and legitimate administration functions may provide continued access without deploying a large custom toolset.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Patch available
- Action
- Review the linked authoritative reference and apply the recorded fixed release appropriate to the affected product branch.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 16 Aug 2023 · Last source change 3 Oct 2024, 13:37 UTC · CWE-203 · Observable Discrepancy
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2023-44640
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD modified after enrichment
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.