Weakness (CWE)
CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery
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.
How to prevent it (7 mitigations)
-
Architecture and Design
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482].
For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330]
Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]
-
Implementation
Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
-
Architecture and Design
Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330). [REF-332]
-
Architecture and Design
Identify especially dangerous operations. When the user performs a dangerous operation, send a separate confirmation request to ensure that the user intended to perform that operation.
-
Architecture and Design
Use the "double-submitted cookie" method as described by Felten and Zeller:
When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user's machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as a form value and also as a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form value and the cookie value are the same.
Because of the same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult.
This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled. [REF-331]
-
Architecture and Design
Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.
-
Implementation
Check the HTTP Referer header to see if the request originated from an expected page. This could break legitimate functionality, because users or proxies may have disabled sending the Referer for privacy reasons.
Source: MITRE CWE-352
17 results · Clear filters · Feed
-
Critical 9.3CVE-2026-67921 Public exploit
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in Halo CMS versions up to 2.25.4 via the CorsConfigurer.java an…
-
Critical 9.6CVE-2026-70376 Public exploit
Pluck CMS - CSRF via Spoofable Missing-Referer Bypass Leads to Stored XSS and RCE
Pluck CMS's admin panel relies solely on a Referer-header comparison (requestedByTheSameDomain in data/inc/functions.admin.php, gating every admin.php action) for CSRF protection, with no per-request anti-CSRF token anywhere in the admin area.
-
Critical 9.1CVE-2026-26718 Public exploit
A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the xxl-job-admin web application v.3.0.0 that allows an at…
-
Critical 9.4
Ray is vulnerable to RCE via Safari & Firefox Browsers through DNS Rebinding Attack
Ray is an AI compute engine. Prior to version 2.52.0, developers working with Ray as a development tool can be exploited via a critical RCE vulnerability exploitable via Firefox and Safari. This vulnerability is due to an insufficient guard against browser-ba…
KEV Aug 17, 2026 -
Critical 9.4
@nestjs/devtools-integration's CSRF to Sandbox Escape Allows for RCE against JS Developers
Nest is a framework for building scalable Node.js server-side applications. In versions 0.2.0 and below, a critical Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability was discovered in the @nestjs/devtools-integration package. When enabled, the package exposes a local…
-
Critical 9.6CVE-2025-39601 Public exploit
WordPress Custom CSS, JS & PHP plugin <= 2.4.1 - CSRF to RCE vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in WPFactory Custom CSS, JS & PHP custom-css allows Remote Code Inclusion.This issue affects Custom CSS, JS & PHP: from n/a through <= 2.4.1.
-
Critical 9.6CVE-2025-30967 Public exploit
WordPress WPJobBoard plugin < 5.11.1 - CSRF to Remote Code Execution (RCE) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in NotFound WPJobBoard allows Upload a Web Shell to a Web Server. This issue affects WPJobBoard: from n/a through n/a.
-
Critical 9.8CVE-2025-31033 Public exploit
WordPress Buddypress Humanity plugin <= 1.2 - CSRF to Privilege Escalation vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Adam Nowak Buddypress Humanity buddypress-humanity allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Buddypress Humanity: from n/a through <= 1.2.
-
Critical 9.6CVE-2025-32641 Public exploit
WordPress Anant Addons for Elementor plugin <= 1.1.8 - CSRF to Arbitrary Plugin Installation vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in anantaddons Anant Addons for Elementor anant-addons-for-elementor allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Anant Addons for Elementor: from n/a through <= 1.1.8.
-
Critical 9.0CVE-2025-26206 Public exploit
Cross Site Request Forgery vulnerability in sell done storefront v.1.0 allows a remote attacker to escalate privileges …
-
Critical 9.6CVE-2025-25101 Public exploit
WordPress Munk Sites plugin <= 1.0.7 - CSRF to Arbitrary Plugin Installation vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in MetricThemes Munk Sites munk-sites allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Munk Sites: from n/a through <= 1.0.7.
-
Critical 10.0CVE-2025-23922 Public exploit
WordPress iSpring Embedder plugin <= 1.0 - CSRF to Arbitrary File Upload vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Harsh iSpring Embedder embed-ispring allows Upload a Web Shell to a Web Server.This issue affects iSpring Embedder: from n/a through <= 1.0.
-
Critical 9.6CVE-2024-52402 Public exploit
WordPress Exclusive Content Password Protect plugin <= 1.1.0 - CSRF to Arbitrary File Upload vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in gunghoinc Exclusive Content Password Protect exclusive-content-password-protect allows Upload a Web Shell to a Web Server.This issue affects Exclusive Content Password Protect: from n/a through <= 1.1.0.
-
Critical 9.7CVE-2024-22416 Public exploit
Cross-Site Request Forgery on any API call in pyLoad may lead to admin privilege escalation
pyLoad is a free and open-source Download Manager written in pure Python. The `pyload` API allows any API call to be made using GET requests. Since the session cookie is not set to `SameSite: strict`, this opens the library up to severe attack possibilities v…
-
Critical 9.7
XWiki Admin Tools Application Run Shell Command allows CSRF RCE attacks
The XWiki Admin Tools Application provides tools to help the administration of XWiki. Starting in version 4.4 and prior to version 4.5.1, a cross site request forgery vulnerability in the admin tool for executing shell commands on the server allows an attacke…
-
Critical 9.6CVE-2022-41924 Public exploit
Tailscale Windows daemon is vulnerable to RCE via CSRF
A vulnerability identified in the Tailscale Windows client allows a malicious website to reconfigure the Tailscale daemon `tailscaled`, which can then be used to remotely execute code. In the Tailscale Windows client, the local API was bound to a local TCP so…
-
Critical 9.8CVE-2019-17495 Public exploit
Cross-site scripting in Swagger-UI
A Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) injection vulnerability in Swagger UI before 3.23.11 allows attackers to use the Relative Path Overwrite (RPO) technique to perform CSS-based input field value exfiltration, such as exfiltration of a CSRF token value. In other w…