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
4,164 results · Clear filters · Feed
-
Medium 4.3
Bigfishgames Syndicate <= 1.2 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Settings Reset and Update
The Bigfishgames Syndicate plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the bigfishgames_syndicate_submenu() function. This makes it possibl…
-
Medium 4.3
JaviBola Custom Theme Test <= 2.0.5 - Cross-Site Request Forgery
The JaviBola Custom Theme Test plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.0.5. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the options page. This makes it possible for unauthenticated a…
-
Medium 4.3
Games Catalog <= 1.2.0 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Arbitrary Game/Post Deletion
The Games Catalog plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 1.2.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the gc_crud() function which handles the delete action (action=delete) via a GE…
-
Medium 5.4
Zechat 1.5 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via hashtag parameter
Zechat 1.5 contains a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability that allows an attacker to change a user's information by bypassing anti-CSRF protections. The application uses a CSRF token, but an attacker can use the hashtag parameter to inject an enco…
-
Medium 5.3
jCart for OpenCart 2.3.0.2 Cross-Site Request Forgery
jCart for OpenCart 2.3.0.2 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to modify user account information without authentication. Attackers can craft malicious HTML forms targeting endpoints , and to change user credentials, pass…
-
Medium 4.3
Joomla JoomOCShop 1.0 Cross-Site Request Forgery
Joomla JoomOCShop 1.0 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to perform unauthorized actions on behalf of authenticated users. Attackers can craft malicious HTML forms targeting account endpoints like /joomoc2/?route=account…
-
Medium 5.3
Joomla! Component Js Jobs 1.2.0 Cross-Site Request Forgery
Joomla! Component Js Jobs 1.2.0 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to perform state-changing actions without token validation. Attackers can craft malicious HTML forms targeting administrative endpoints like job.jobenfor…
-
Medium 4.3
TP-Link TL-WR720N CSRF via Administrative Interfaces (firmware V1_130719)
TP-Link TL-WR720N wireless router contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to perform unauthorized administrative actions by crafting malicious web requests. Attackers can modify port forwarding rules via VirtualServerRpm.htm …
-
Medium 5.3
bloofoxCMS 0.5.2.1 Cross-Site Request Forgery via user add
bloofoxCMS 0.5.2.1 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to perform administrative actions by tricking logged-in users into visiting malicious pages. Attackers can craft hidden forms targeting the admin user creation endpoi…
-
Medium 4.6
Open WebUI: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via Image URL Manipulation
Open WebUI is a self-hosted artificial intelligence platform designed to operate entirely offline. Prior to 0.9.3, an application-wide Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability was found Open-WebUl's image uploading functionality. An attacker can set an…
-
Medium 5.1
Turborepo: Login callback CSRF/session fixation
Turborepo is a high-performance build system for JavaScript and TypeScript codebases. Prior to 2.9.14, Turborepo's self-hosted login and SSO browser flows did not validate a CSRF state value on the localhost callback. While the CLI was waiting for authenticat…
-
Medium 4.3
Notify Odoo <= 1.0.1 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Settings Update
The Notify Odoo plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the _updateSettings function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated atta…
-
Medium 4.3
LatePoint <= 5.3.2 - Cross-Site Request Forgery via 'customer_cabinet__request_cancellation' AJAX Route
The LatePoint plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to and including 5.3.2. This is due to missing nonce verification on the request_cancellation() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to…
-
Medium 6.5
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in GitLab
GitLab has remediated an issue in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 11.10 before 18.9.7, 18.10 before 18.10.6, and 18.11 before 18.11.3 that could have allowed an unauthenticated user to create unauthorized Jira subscriptions for a targeted user's name…
-
Medium 6.1
CKAN: CSRF exemption primed by anonymous requests
CKAN is an open-source DMS (data management system) for powering data hubs and data portals. Prior to 2.10.10 and 2.11.5, Access to the views via tokens or unauthenticated requests marked the endpoint as not requiring CSRF protection. The marking was a member…
-
Medium 4.3
Easy2Pilot 7 Cross-Site Request Forgery via admin.php
Easy2Pilot 7 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to add unauthorized user accounts by tricking authenticated administrators into visiting malicious pages. Attackers can craft HTML forms targeting the admin.php?action=add_…
-
Medium 5.4
BIG-IP Configuration utility CSRF vulnerability
A cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the dashboard of the BIG-IP Configuration utility. Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated.
-
Medium 5.8
Warpgate: SSO CSRF -- State Token Not Validated on Return
Warpgate is an open source SSH, HTTPS and MySQL bastion host for Linux. Prior to 0.23.3, the SSO flow does not validate the state parameter, which makes it possible for an attacker to trick a user into logging into the attacker's account, possibly convincing …
-
Medium 4.3
Skysa Text Ticker App <= 1.4 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Settings Modification via 'Save Settings' Form
The Skysa Text Ticker App plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.4. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the SkysaApps_Admin_AppPage function. This makes it possible for unau…
-
Medium 4.3
Woo Commerce Minimum Weight <= 3.0.1 - Cross-Site Request Forgery via Settings Update Form
The Woo Commerce Minimum Weight plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to and including 3.0.1. This is due to missing nonce verification on the settings update handler in edit-weight.php. This makes it possible for…
-
Medium 6.1
Tm – WordPress Redirection <= 1.2 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Stored Cross-Site Scripting
The Tm – WordPress Redirection plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on a function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers…
-
Medium 4.3
Zawgyi Embed <= 2.1.1 - Cross-Site Request Forgery via 'zawgyi_forceCSS' Parameter
The Zawgyi Embed plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.1.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the zawgyi_adminpage function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated at…
-
Medium 4.3
WP-Redirection <= 1.0.3 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Settings Update
The WP-Redirection plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to and including 1.0.3. This is due to the absence of a nonce field in the admin settings form and the lack of any nonce verification (via check_admin_refer…
-
Medium 5.4
Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in SAP BusinessObjects Business Intelligence Platform
Due to insufficient CSRF protection in SAP BusinessObjects Business Intelligence Platform ,an authenticated user could be tricked by an attacker to send unintended requests to the web server. This has low impact on integrity and availability of the applicatio…
-
Medium 5.8
Outline: Slack OAuth state can link a victim Outline account to an attacker Slack identity
Outline is a service that allows for collaborative documentation. Prior to 1.7.1, the Slack integration callback for GET /auth/slack.post accepts an unsigned, session-independent OAuth state value. A third party who can obtain a Slack OAuth code for the same …
-
Medium 5.4
WWBN AVideo: CSRF in userSavePhoto.php Allows Cross-Origin Overwrite of Any Logged-in User's Profile Photo with Arbitrary Bytes
WWBN AVideo is an open source video platform. In versions up to and including 29.0, objects/userSavePhoto.php is a legacy profile-photo endpoint that accepts a base64 POST parameter and writes the decoded bytes to videos/userPhoto/photo<users_id>.png. Its onl…
-
Medium 4.3
OpenCart 3.0.3.7 Cross-Site Request Forgery via account/password
OpenCart 3.0.3.7 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to change user passwords by sending crafted requests to the account/password endpoint. Attackers can trick authenticated users into submitting hidden forms with new pas…
-
Medium 5.3
OpenCart 3.0.3.6 Account Takeover via Cross Site Request Forgery
OpenCart 3.0.3.6 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability in the /account/edit endpoint that allows unauthenticated attackers to modify victim account details by tricking users into visiting malicious pages. Attackers can craft CSRF payloads that c…
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress Plugin Curtain 1.0.2 Cross-site Request Forgery
WordPress Plugin Curtain 1.0.2 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to activate or deactivate site maintenance mode by crafting malicious requests. Attackers can trick authenticated administrators into submitting forged re…
-
Medium 4.3
osTicket Dispatcher class.dispatcher.php cross-site request forgery
A security vulnerability has been detected in osTicket up to 1.18.3. Impacted is an unknown function of the file include/class.dispatcher.php of the component Dispatcher. The manipulation of the argument _method leads to cross-site request forgery. Remote exp…
-
Medium 5.3
RedwoodSDK: Same-site CSRF in in server actions
RedwoodSDK is a server-first React framework. From version 1.0.0-beta.50 to before version 1.2.3, server actions in rwsdk apply HTTP method enforcement but no origin validation. A request originating from a different origin that the browser treats as same-sit…
-
Medium 6.5
CSRF in DivvyDrive Information Technologies' DivvyDrive
Cross-Site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in DivvyDrive Information Technologies Inc. DivvyDrive allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects DivvyDrive: from 4.8.2.9 before 4.8.3.2.
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress BEAR plugin <= 1.1.5 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in PluginUs.Net BEAR allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects BEAR: from n/a through 1.1.5.
-
Medium 5.4
WordPress WPGraphQL plugin <= 2.5.3 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in WPGraphQL allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects WPGraphQL: from n/a through 2.5.3.
-
Medium 6.1
Publish 2 Ping.fm <= 1.1 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via 'wpPingPingKey' Parameter
The Publish 2 Ping.fm plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the '/wp-admin/options-general.php?page=admin.php' page. This makes it po…
-
Medium 4.3
DX Sources <= 2.0.1 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Settings Update
The DX Sources plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.0.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the settings_page_build function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated a…
-
Medium 4.3
addfreespace <= 0.1.3 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via Settings Page
The addfreespace plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 0.1.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on a function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update s…
-
Medium 6.5
goshs has Cross-Origin Arbitrary File Write via Missing CSRF on PUT and Wildcard CORS
goshs is a SimpleHTTPServer written in Go. Prior to version 2.0.2, the PUT upload handler (httpserver/updown.go) lacks the CSRF token validation that was added to the POST upload handler during the CVE-2026-40883 fix. Combined with the unconditional Access-Co…
-
Medium 4.3
Ultimate Dashboard <= 3.8.14 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Module Activation/Deactivation
The Ultimate Dashboard plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.8.14. This is due to a flawed nonce validation conditional in the 'handle_module_actions' function. This makes it possible for unau…
-
Medium 4.3
VideoFlow Digital Video Protection DVP 2.10 - Authenticated Remote Code Execution
VideoFlow Digital Video Protection DVP 2.10 contains an authenticated remote code execution vulnerability that allows authenticated attackers to execute arbitrary system commands by exploiting a cross-site request forgery flaw in the web management interface.…