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
2,042 results · Clear filters · Feed
-
High 8.8
Sielco Radio Link and Analog FM Transmitters Cross-Site Request Forgery
The application interface allows users to perform certain actions via HTTP requests without performing any validity checks to verify the requests. This can be exploited to perform certain actions with administrative privileges if a logged-in user visits a mal…
-
High 8.8
ImageMagick Engine <= 1.7.5 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Remote Command Execution
The ImageMagick Engine plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to remote code execution via the 'cli_path' parameter in versions up to, and including 1.7.5. This makes it possible for unauthenticated users to run arbitrary commands leading to remote command execut…
-
High 8.6
Client-Side Request Forgery in Home Assistant iOS/macOS native Apps
The Home Assistant Companion for iOS and macOS app up to version 2023.4 are vulnerable to Client-Side Request Forgery. Attackers may send malicious links/QRs to victims that, when visited, will make the victim to call arbitrary services in their Home Assistan…
-
High 8.6
CSRF Token Validation Vulnerability in fiber
Fiber is an express inspired web framework written in Go. A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability has been identified in the application, which allows an attacker to obtain tokens and forge malicious requests on behalf of a user. This can lead to un…
-
High 7.1
WordPress LeadSquared Suite Plugin <= 0.7.4 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in LeadSquared, Inc LeadSquared Suite plugin <= 0.7.4 versions.
-
High 8.8
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) in SmodBIP
SmodBIP is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery, that could be used to induce logged in users to perform unintended actions, including creation of additional accounts with administrative privileges. This issue affects all versions of SmodBIP. SmodBIP is n…
-
High 8.6
Cross-Site Request Forgery in Ormazabal products
Lack of device control over web requests in ekorCCP and ekorRCI, allowing an attacker to create customised requests to execute malicious actions when a user is logged in, affecting availability, privacy and integrity.
-
High 8.9
Socomec MOD3GP-SY-120K Cross-Site Request Forgery
Thanks to the weaknesses that the web application has at the user management level, an attacker could obtain the information from the headers that is necessary to create specially designed URLs and originate malicious actions when a legitimate user is logged …
-
High 7.3
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in usememos/memos
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in GitHub repository usememos/memos prior to 0.15.1.
-
High 8.8
Login with phone number <= 1.5.6 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to User Password Change
The Login with phone number plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 1.5.6. This is due to missing nonce validation on the 'lwp_update_password_action' function. This makes it possible for unauthentica…
-
High 8.1
StarTrinity Softswitch version 2023-02-16 - multiple CSRF (CWE-352)
StarTrinity Softswitch version 2023-02-16 - Multiple CSRF (CWE-352)
-
High 7.4
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories SEL-5037 SEL Grid Configurator could allow an attacker to embed instructions that could be executed by an authorized device operator. See Instruction Manual Appendix …
-
High 7.1
WordPress WOLF Plugin <= 1.0.6 is vulnerable to CSRF leading to Stored Cross Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) leading to Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in realmag777 WOLF – WordPress Posts Bulk Editor and Manager Professional plugin <= 1.0.6 versions.
-
High 8.0
Jenkins Folders Plugin cross-site request forgery vulnerability
A cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Jenkins Folders Plugin 6.846.v23698686f0f6 and earlier allows attackers to copy folders.
-
High 8.8
xuxueli xxl-job Cross-Site Request Forgery Vulnerability
Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in xxl-job-admin/user/add in xuxueli xxl-job version 2.2.0, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code and esclate privileges via crafted .html file.
-
High 8.8
Absolute Privacy <= 2.1 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to User Email/Password Change
The Absolute Privacy plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 2.1. This is due to missing nonce validation on the 'abpr_profileShortcode' function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers …
-
High 8.8
Realia <= 1.4.0 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to User Email Change
The Realia plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 1.4.0. This is due to missing nonce validation on the 'process_change_profile_form' function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to…
-
High 8.8
wger Workout Manager Cross-Site Request Forgery vulnerability
Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in wger Project wger Workout Manager 2.2.0a3 allows a remote attacker to gain privileges via the user-management feature in the gym/views/gym.py, templates/gym/reset_user_password.html, templates/user/overview.h…
-
High 8.8
Cockpit CMS Cross-Site Request Forgery vulnerability
A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in the Admin portal of Cockpit CMS v2.5.2 allows attackers to execute arbitrary Administrator commands.
-
High 8.8
Jenkins ElasticBox CI Plugin vulnerable to cross-site request forgery
A cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Jenkins ElasticBox CI Plugin 5.0.1 and earlier allows attackers to connect to an attacker-specified URL using attacker-specified credentials IDs obtained through another method, capturing credentials stored…
-
High 8.8
Jenkins Benchmark Evaluator Plugin vulnerable to cross-site request forgery
A cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Jenkins Benchmark Evaluator Plugin 1.0.1 and earlier allows attackers to connect to an attacker-specified URL and to check for the existence of directories, `.csv`, and `.ycsb` files on the Jenkins controll…
-
High 8.8
Jenkins Assembla Auth Plugin vulnerable to cross-site request forgery
A cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Jenkins Assembla Auth Plugin 1.14 and earlier allows attackers to trick users into logging in to the attacker's account.
-
High 8.8
Jenkins Pipeline restFul API Plugin vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery
A cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Jenkins Pipeline restFul API Plugin 0.11 and earlier allows attackers to connect to an attacker-specified URL, capturing a newly generated JCLI token.
-
High 8.8
Jenkins Sumologic Publisher Plugin vulnerable to cross-site request forgery
A cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Jenkins Sumologic Publisher Plugin 2.2.1 and earlier allows attackers to connect to an attacker-specified URL.
-
High 8.1
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in salesagility/suitecrm-core
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in GitHub repository salesagility/suitecrm-core prior to 8.3.1.
-
High 8.1
WordPress WPLMS Theme < 4.900 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in VibeThemes WPLMS theme <= 4.900 versions.
-
High 7.1
WordPress Layer Slider Plugin <= 1.1.9.7 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Muneeb Layer Slider plugin <= 1.1.9.7 versions.
-
High 7.5
A vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM ROX MX5000 (All versions < V2.16.0), RUGGEDCOM ROX MX5000RE (All versi…
-
High 7.1
Buy Me a Coffee – Button and Widget Plugin <= 3.7 - Cross-Site Request Forgery
The "Buy Me a Coffee – Button and Widget Plugin" plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery due to missing nonce validation on the recieve_post, bmc_disconnect, name_post, and widget_post functions in versions up to, and including, 3.7. …
-
High 8.8
PiiGAB M-Bus Cross-Site Request Forgery
PiiGAB M-Bus is vulnerable to cross-site request forgery. An attacker who wants to execute a certain command could send a phishing mail to the owner of the device and hope that the owner clicks on the link. If the owner of the device has a cookie stored that …
-
High 7.4
@fastify/oauth2 vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery due to reused Oauth2 state
All versions of @fastify/oauth2 used a statically generated state parameter at startup time and were used across all requests for all users. The purpose of the Oauth2 state parameter is to prevent Cross-Site-Request-Forgery attacks. As such, it should be uniq…
-
High 8.8
Style Kits <= 1.8.0 - Cross-Site Request Forgery Bypass
The Style Kits plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 1.8.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the update_posts_stylekit() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated a…
-
High 7.1
WordPress UpdraftPlus Plugin <= 1.23.3 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in UpdraftPlus.Com, DavidAnderson UpdraftPlus WordPress Backup Plugin <= 1.23.3 versions leads to sitewide Cross-Site Scripting (XSS).
-
High 7.1
WordPress Form Builder Plugin <= 1.9.9.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Muneeb Form Builder plugin <= 1.9.9.0 versions.
-
High 8.8
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in Riello UPS Netman-204
There is a CSRF vulnerability on Netman-204 version 02.05. An attacker could manage to change administrator passwords through a Cross Site Request Forgery due to the lack of proper validation on the CRSF token. This vulnerability could allow a remote attacker…
-
High 8.4
PaperCut MF/NG 22.0.10 (Build 65996 2023-03-27) - Remote code execution via CSRF
A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability has been identified in PaperCut NG/MF, which, under specific conditions, could potentially enable an attacker to alter security settings or execute arbitrary code. This could be exploited if the target is an a…
KEV Jul 28, 2025 -
High 8.0
Cross Site Request Forgery vulnerability in GreenCMS v.2.3 allows an attacker to gain privileges via the adduser functi…
-
High 8.8
Cross Site Request Forgery vulnerability in Neeke HongCMS 3.0.0 allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code and …
-
High 8.8
GilaCMS Cross Site Request Forgery vulnerability
Cross Site Request Forgery vulnerability in Gila GilaCMS v.1.11.4 allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via the cm/update_rows/user parameter.
-
High 8.4
The driver installation package created by Printer Driver Packager NX v1.0.02 to v1.1.25 fails to detect its modificati…