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
4,167 results · Clear filters · Feed
-
Medium 4.3
Custom Post Type <= 1.0 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Custom Post Type Deletion
The Custom Post Type plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0. This is due to missing nonce validation on the custom post type deletion functionality. This makes it possible for unauthenticated…
-
Medium 6.5
Cross-site request forgery vulnerability exists in LogStare Collector. If a user views a crafted page while logged, uni…
-
Medium 6.8
HCL Glovius Cloud is susceptible to a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability was identified in HCL Glovius Cloud. An attacker can force a user's web browser to execute an unwanted, malicious action on a trusted site where the user is authenticated, specifically on one endpoint.
-
Medium 5.3
SureForms <= 1.13.1 - Cross-Site Request Forgery Protection Bypass via Improper Nonce Distribution
The SureForms plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery Bypass in all versions up to, and including, 1.13.1. This is due to the plugin distributing generic WordPress REST API nonces (wp_rest) to unauthenticated users via the 'wp_ajax_no…
-
Medium 5.1
Cross-Site Request Forgery in Windu CMS
Windu CMS is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in file uploading functionality. Malicious attacker can craft special website, which when visited by the victim, will automatically send malicious file to the server. Only version 4.1 was tested and confir…
-
Medium 5.1
Cross-Site Request Forgery in Windu CMS
Windu CMS is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in user editing functionality. Malicious attacker can craft special website, which when visited by the victim, will automatically send POST request that deletes given user. Only version 4.1 was tested and …
-
Medium 6.8
Cross-Site Request Forgery in Windu CMS
Windu CMS is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in user editing functionality. Implemented CSRF protection mechanism can be bypassed by using CSRF token of other user. It is worth noting that the registration is open and anyone can create an account. On…
-
Medium 6.1
Project Honey Pot Spam Trap <= 1.0.1 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Stored Cross-Site Scripting
The Project Honey Pot Spam Trap 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 printAdminPage() function. This makes it possible for una…
-
Medium 4.3
WP Admin Microblog <= 3.1.1 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Message Creation
The WP Admin Microblog plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.1.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the 'wp-admin-microblog' page. This makes it possible for unauthentica…
-
Medium 4.3
Top Friends <= 0.3 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Settings Update
The Top Friends plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 0.3. This is due to missing nonce validation on the top_friends_options_subpanel() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated atta…
-
Medium 6.1
Like-it <= 2.2 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Stored Cross-Site Scripting
The Like-it plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the likeit_conf() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to…
-
Medium 4.3
Coil Web Monetization <= 2.0.2 - Cross-Site Request Forgery
The Coil Web Monetization plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.0.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the coil-get-css-selector parameter handling in the maybe_restrict_…
-
Medium 4.5
-
Medium 4.3
Bdtask/CodeCanyon Wholesale Inventory Control and Inventory Management System cross-site request forgery
A vulnerability has been found in Bdtask/CodeCanyon Wholesale Inventory Control and Inventory Management System up to 20250320. This issue affects some unknown processing. Such manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery. The attack may be performed from…
-
Medium 4.3
Bdtask/CodeCanyon SalesERP cross-site request forgery
A vulnerability was detected in Bdtask/CodeCanyon SalesERP up to 20250728. This affects an unknown part. The manipulation results in cross-site request forgery. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was con…
-
Medium 6.1
Inadequate validation of SSO redirect credentials permits credential theft
Mattermost Mobile Apps versions <=2.32.0 fail to verify that SSO redirect tokens originate from the trusted server, which allows a malicious Mattermost instance or on-path attacker to obtain user session credentials via crafted token-in-URL responses
-
Medium 4.3
Fabian Ros/SourceCodester Simple E-Banking System cross-site request forgery
A flaw has been found in Fabian Ros/SourceCodester Simple E-Banking System 1.0. This affects an unknown part. This manipulation causes cross-site request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been published and may be used.
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress WP Plugin Manager plugin <= 1.4.7 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in HasThemes WP Plugin Manager wp-plugin-manager allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects WP Plugin Manager: from n/a through <= 1.4.7.
-
Medium 6.5
WordPress Auto Prune Posts plugin <= 3.0.0 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in ramon fincken Auto Prune Posts auto-prune-posts allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Auto Prune Posts: from n/a through <= 3.0.0.
-
Medium 4.6
Tuleap missing CSRF protections in the File Release System
Tuleap is an Open Source Suite to improve management of software developments and collaboration. Tuleap Community Edition prior to version 16.13.99.1762267347 and Tuleap Enterprise Edition prior to versions 17.01-, 16.13-6, and 16.12-9 don't have cross-site r…
-
Medium 4.6
Tuleap missing CSRF protection in the management of SVN commit rules and immutable tags
Tuleap is an Open Source Suite to improve management of software developments and collaboration. Tuleap Community Edition prior to version 16.13.99.1761813675 and Tuleap Enterprise Edition prior to versions 16.13-5 and 16.12-8 don't have cross-site request fo…
-
Medium 4.3
Asgaros Forum <= 3.2.1 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Subscription Settings Update
The Asgaros Forum plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.2.1. This is due to missing nonce validation on the set_subscription_level() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attack…
-
Medium 6.5
A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in xxl-api v1.3.0 allows attackers to arbitrarily add users to the management modul…
-
Medium 6.1
YSlider <= 1.1 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Stored Cross-Site Scripting
The YSlider plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery to Stored Cross-Site Scripting in all versions up to, and including, 1.1. This is due to missing nonce verification on the content configuration page and insufficient input sanitizat…
-
Medium 4.3
USB Qr Code Scanner For Woocommerce <= 1.0.0 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Settings Update
The USB Qr Code Scanner For Woocommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.0. This is due to missing nonce validation on the settings page. This makes it possible for unauthenticated atta…
-
Medium 6.1
WP-Walla <= 0.5.3.5 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Stored Cross-Site Scripting
The WP-Walla plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery to Stored Cross-Site Scripting in all versions up to, and including, 0.5.3.5. This is due to missing nonce verification on the settings page and insufficient input sanitization and …
-
Medium 4.3
WP Custom Admin Login Page Logo <= 1.4.8.4 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Settings Update
The WP Custom Admin Login Page Logo plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.4.8.4. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the wpclpl_save functionality. This makes it possible f…
-
Medium 4.3
CTL Arcade Lite <= 1.0 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Plugin Activation and Deactivation
The CTL Arcade Lite plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the 'ctl_arcade_lite_page_manage_games' page. This makes it possible for un…
-
Medium 6.5
The send_message.php endpoint in SourceCodester Simple Public Chat Room 1.0 is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery…
-
Medium 4.5
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in SourceCodester Product Expiry Management System. The User Management module (delet…
-
Medium 6.5
The SourceCodester Leads Manager Tool v1.0 is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks that allow unauth…
-
Medium 6.5
The change password functionality at /pet_grooming/admin/change_pass.php in SourceCodester Pet Grooming Management Soft…
-
Medium 4.3CVE-2025-62950 Public exploit
WordPress Contest Gallery plugin <= 28.0.0 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Wasiliy Strecker / ContestGallery developer Contest Gallery contest-gallery allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Contest Gallery: from n/a through <= 28.0.0.
-
Medium 4.3
Easy Email Subscription <= 1.3 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Arbitrary Subscriber Deletion
The Easy Email Subscription plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the show_editsub_page() function. This makes it possible for unauth…
-
Medium 6.1
Associados Amazon Plugin <= 0.8 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Stored Cross-Site Scripting
The Associados Amazon Plugin plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 0.8. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the brzon_admin_panel() function. This makes it possible for unaut…
-
Medium 6.1
Visit Counter 1.0 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Stored Cross-Site Scripting
The Visit Counter plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in version 1.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the widgets.php page. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update settings and inject…
-
Medium 6.1
MapMap <= 1.1 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Settings Update and Stored Cross-Site Scripting
The MapMap 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 admin_shortcode_submit, admin_configuration_submit, and admin_shortcode_delete f…
-
Medium 6.1
LinkedIn Resume <= 2.00 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Stored Cross-Site Scripting
The LinkedIn Resume plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.00. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the linkedinresume_printAdminPage() function. This makes it possible for u…
-
Medium 6.1
Centangle Team Showcase <= 1.0.0 - Cross-Site Request Forgery To Plugin's Settings Modification And Stored Cross-Site Scripting
The Centangle-Team plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on a function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify…
-
Medium 6.1
LMB^Box Smileys <= 3.2 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Stored Cross-Site Scripting
The LMB^Box Smileys plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the manage_page() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated atta…