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 6.1
Clickbank WordPress Plugin (Storefront) <= 1.7 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Stored Cross-Site Scripting
The Clickbank WordPress Plugin (Storefront) plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.7. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation via the cs_menu page. This makes it possible for unaut…
-
Medium 4.3
CLUEVO LMS, E-Learning Platform <= 1.13.2 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Module Deletion
The CLUEVO LMS, E-Learning Platform plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.13.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the cluevo_render_module_ui() function. This makes it po…
-
Medium 6.1
WP System <= 1.1.1 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Stored Cross-Site Scripting
The WP System plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.1.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the generate_wp_system_page_content() function. This makes it possible for unau…
-
Medium 4.3
3DPrint Lite < 2.1 - Settings Update via CSRF
The 3DPrint Lite WordPress plugin before 2.1 does not have CSRF check in place when updating its settings, which could allow attackers to make a logged in admin change them via a CSRF attack.
-
Medium 4.3
Simple Redirection <= 1.5 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Arbitrary Site Redirect
The Simple Redirection plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.5. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the settings_page() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated…
-
Medium 6.1
Pulsating Chat Button <= 1.4.1 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Stored Cross-Site Scripting
The Pulsating Chat Button plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.4.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the amin_chat_button_settings_page() function. This makes it possib…
-
Medium 6.5
IBM Cognos Controller cross-site request forgery
IBM Cognos Controller 11.0.0 and 11.0.1 is vulnerable to cross-site request forgery which could allow an attacker to execute malicious and unauthorized actions transmitted from a user that the website trusts.
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress Jobify plugin < 4.3.0 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Astoundify Jobify jobify allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Jobify: from n/a through < 4.3.0.
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress Ahmeti Wp Güzel Sözler plugin <= 4.0 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in ahmeti Ahmeti Wp Güzel Sözler ahmeti-wp-guzel-sozler allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Ahmeti Wp Güzel Sözler: from n/a through <= 4.0.
-
Medium 5.4
WordPress Build App Online plugin <= 1.0.23 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in hakeemnala Build App Online build-app-online allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Build App Online: from n/a through <= 1.0.23.
-
Medium 5.4
WordPress WP Revisions Manager plugin <= 1.0.2 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in P Roy WP Revisions Manager wp-revisions-manager allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects WP Revisions Manager: from n/a through <= 1.0.2.
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress DancePress (TRWA) plugin <= 3.1.11 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in benmoreassynt DancePress (TRWA) dancepress-trwa allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects DancePress (TRWA): from n/a through <= 3.1.11.
-
Medium 4.3
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in NEC Corporation UNIVERGE IX from Ver9.2 to Ver10.10.21, for Ver10.8 …
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress Contact Forms by Cimatti <= 1.9.2 - Cross-Site Request Forgery via process_bulk_action Function
The WordPress Contact Forms by Cimatti plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.9.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the process_bulk_action function. This makes it possib…
-
Medium 4.3
SourceCodester Best House Rental Management System POST Request ajax.php cross-site request forgery
A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, was found in SourceCodester Best House Rental Management System 1.0. Affected is an unknown function of the file /rental/ajax.php?action=delete_user of the component POST Request Handler. The manipulation …
-
Medium 6.1
Skt NURCaptcha <= 3.5.0 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Stored Cross-Site Scripting
The Skt NURCaptcha plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.5.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation in the skt-nurc-admin.php file. This makes it possible for unauthenticated at…
-
Medium 4.3
1000 Projects Bookstore Management System cross-site request forgery
A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, has been found in 1000 Projects Bookstore Management System 1.0. This issue affects some unknown processing. The manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. The …
-
Medium 6.5
Zimbra GraphQL Cross-Site Request Forgery Information Disclosure Vulnerability
Zimbra GraphQL Cross-Site Request Forgery Information Disclosure Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to disclose sensitive information on affected installations of Zimbra. User interaction is required to exploit this vulnerability in tha…
-
Medium 6.1
WIP Incoming Lite <= 1.1.1 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Stored Cross-Site Scripting
The WIP Incoming Lite plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.1.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the save_option() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated …
-
Medium 6.1
Friendly Functions for Welcart <= 1.2.4 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Reflected Cross-Site Scripting
The Friendly Functions for Welcart plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.2.4. This is due to missing nonce validation on the settings update functionality. This makes it possible for unauthent…
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress Dynamic Widgets plugin <= 1.6.4 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Kalmang Dynamic Widgets dynamic-widgets.This issue affects Dynamic Widgets: from n/a through <= 1.6.4.
-
Medium 6.3
WordPress W3SPEEDSTER plugin <= 7.25 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in w3speedster W3SPEEDSTER w3speedster-wp.This issue affects W3SPEEDSTER: from n/a through <= 7.25.
-
Medium 5.4
WordPress ARMember plugin <= 4.0.5 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Repute InfoSystems ARMember, Repute InfoSystems ARMember Premium allows Cross-Site Request Forgery.This issue affects ARMember: from n/a through 4.0.5; ARMember Premium: from n/a before 6.7.1.
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress Crowdsignal Polls & Ratings plugin <= 3.1.3 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Automattic Crowdsignal Dashboard – Polls, Surveys & more polldaddy allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Crowdsignal Dashboard – Polls, Surveys & more: from n/a through <= 3.1.3.
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress Manage User Columns plugin <= 1.0.5 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Deepak Khokhar Manage User Columns manage-user-columns allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Manage User Columns: from n/a through <= 1.0.5.
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress Disable Admin Notices individually plugin <= 1.4.0 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Themeisle Disable Admin Notices individually disable-admin-notices allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Disable Admin Notices individually: from n/a through <= 1.4.0.
-
Medium 4.3
EleForms – All In One Form Integration including DB for Elementor <= 2.9.9.9 - Cross-Site Request Forgery
The EleForms – All In One Form Integration including DB for Elementor plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.9.9.9. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation when deleting form submi…
-
Medium 5.3
404 Error Monitor <= 1.1 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Plugin Settings Update via updatePluginSettings Function
The 404 Error Monitor 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 updatePluginSettings() function. This makes it possible for unauthent…
-
Medium 6.5
CSRF in wallabag/wallabag
wallabag version 2.5.2 contains a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability that allows attackers to arbitrarily delete user accounts via the /account/delete endpoint. This issue is fixed in version 2.5.4.
-
Medium 4.5
VaeMendis - CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
VaeMendis - CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
-
Medium 4.7
07FLYCMS V1.3.9 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via the component 'erp.07fly.net:80/admin…
-
Medium 4.3
Kognetiks Chatbot for WordPress <= 2.1.8 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Authenticated (Subscriber+) Assistant Modification
The Kognetiks Chatbot for WordPress plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.1.8. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the update_assistant, add_new_assistant, and delete_assis…
-
Medium 4.3
WPForms – Easy Form Builder for WordPress <= 1.9.1.6 - Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) to Plugin's Log Deletion
The WPForms – Easy Form Builder for WordPress – Contact Forms, Payment Forms, Surveys, & More plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.9.1.6. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation …
-
Medium 4.3
GetSimpleCMS profile.php cross-site request forgery
A vulnerability was found in GetSimpleCMS 3.3.16 and classified as problematic. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file /admin/profile.php. The manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit …
-
Medium 6.5
Appspace 6.2.4 is affected by Incorrect Access Control via the Appspace Web Portal password reset page.
-
Medium 4.7
SOCIFI Socifi Guest wifi as SAAS is affected by Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via the Socifi wifi portal. The appli…
-
Medium 5.3
Insufficient Validation in Controllers (Activation/Deactivation) in Ampache
Ampache is a web based audio/video streaming application and file manager. The current implementation of token parsing fails to properly validate CSRF tokens when activating or deactivating controllers. This vulnerability allows an attacker to exploit CSRF at…
-
Medium 5.3
Insufficient Validation in Plugins (Activation/Deactivation) in Ampache
Ampache is a web based audio/video streaming application and file manager. The current implementation of token parsing fails to properly validate CSRF tokens when activating or deactivating plugins. This vulnerability allows an attacker to exploit CSRF attack…
-
Medium 5.3
Insufficient Validation in Catalog (Activation/Deactivation) in Ampache
Ampache is a web based audio/video streaming application and file manager. The current implementation of token parsing fails to properly validate CSRF tokens when activating or deactivating catalog. This vulnerability allows an attacker to exploit CSRF attack…
-
Medium 5.3
Insufficient Validation in Delete Message in Ampache
Ampache is a web based audio/video streaming application and file manager. The current implementation of token parsing does not adequately validate CSRF tokens when users delete messages. This vulnerability could be exploited to forge CSRF attacks, allowing a…