The New York Times 2008 CSRF

The New York Times 2008 CSRF Attack

In 2008, The New York Times website was found to be vulnerable to a CSRF (Cross-Site Request Forgery) attack, allowing attackers to unsubscribe users from the email newsletter without their consent.

Below one is another attack. Both attacks were CSRF-based vulnerabilities, but the Email This attack leaked user data, whereas the Unsubscribe attack only altered preferences. The “Email This” attack had a higher security impact because it exposed personal information. 🚨

What Was the Vulnerability?

• The New York Times had an unsubscribe feature that used a simple GET request to remove users from their email list.
• No CSRF tokens or authentication were required to verify if the user actually intended to unsubscribe.
• Attackers could force users to unknowingly unsubscribe by embedding malicious links in third-party websites.

---

How Did the Attack Work?

1. User Was Logged into The New York Times

   • The victim had an active session with The New York Times and was subscribed to newsletters.

2. User Visited a Malicious Website

   • The attacker hosted a malicious webpage containing an image tag (<img>) or an invisible iframe (<iframe>).
   • The webpage automatically sent a forged request to The New York Times.

3. Malicious Unsubscribe Request Sent

   • The malicious site silently executed:

     <img src="https://www.nytimes.com/unsubscribe?email=victim@example.com" />

   • Since the victim’s browser automatically included their authentication cookies, The New York Times processed the request as if the user had manually unsubscribed.

4. The User Was Unsubscribed Without Consent

   • The victim had no idea that they were removed from the newsletter.

---

Why Was The New York Times Vulnerable?

1. No CSRF Tokens Used

   • The unsubscribe request did not require a CSRF token, making it easy to forge.

2. GET Requests Modified State

   • Actions that change user data should never use GET requests.
   • The website should have used POST requests with CSRF protection.

3. Cookies Were Automatically Sent

   • Since the request was same-origin, browsers automatically included session cookies, making the forged request valid.

---

Impact of the Attack

• Users were silently unsubscribed from The New York Times newsletters.
• The attack could be automated, affecting thousands of users quickly.
• If extended, this method could have been used for more harmful actions (e.g., account modifications).

---

How The New York Times Fixed It

✔ Implemented CSRF Tokens:

• Now, users must submit a unique CSRF token with every unsubscribe request.

✔ Switched from GET to POST Requests:

• The unsubscribe action now requires a POST request instead of GET.

✔ Added Confirmation Steps:

• Users now need to confirm their action via a confirmation page before unsubscribing.

✔ Implemented SameSite=Lax Cookies:

• This prevents cookies from being automatically sent in cross-origin requests.

---

Lessons from The New York Times CSRF Attack

🔹 Always require CSRF tokens for state-changing requests.
🔹 Use POST, not GET, for sensitive actions (e.g., modifying user settings).
🔹 Confirm user actions before executing irreversible changes.
🔹 Monitor unusual traffic patterns to detect CSRF attempts early.

The 2008 New York Times CSRF attack showed how even simple features like an unsubscribe button can become a security risk if not properly secured. 🚀