The reason why this is secure, and maliciousSite.com cannot simply do a GET, steal the token, and then do a POST is that the request is done by the user’s browser, not by the server at maliciousSite.com. All data returned from fakebank.com is returned to the user’s browser, not to the server at maliciousSite.com. If maliciousSite.com does perform a GET to retrieve a token, it will be a different token than was issued to the user. maliciousSite.com cannot set this cookie into the user’s browser to be submitted to fakebank.com because of same-domain restrictions.
The CSRF POST attack works by tricking the user’s browser into requesting fakebank.com/withdrawForm.html directly using a properly formed POST request. The server at fakebank.com happily executes the requested POST, thus transferring funds using the parameters supplied in the POST body (which include a destination account belonging to the attacker that was put there by maliciousSite.com). The server at maliciousSite.com doesn’t need to see the data returned, because the action has been taken (unless fakebank.com uses these CSRF tokens, which the maliciousSite.com can’t possibly know unless it has been divulged in some way. It can’t ask for it). If fakebank.com is using CSRF tokens, then maliciousSite.com will submit a POST request that is missing the token, thus indicating a potential CSRF attack in progress.
Vulnerabilities of this method include using a CSRF token that is not kept sufficiently secret and is divulged in some way. Also, if the CSRF token is not sufficiently random, then maliciousSite.com might be able to guess it. Also, if there is a weakness in the browser’s enforcement of same domain policy, this could be exploited. Generally speaking, modern browsers are not vulnerable to this.
Please let me know if this is an insufficient explanation and I’ll attempt to articulate it a little better for you.