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
Forminator Forms – Contact Form, Payment Form & Custom Form Builder <= 1.35.1 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Draft Custom Form Creation
The Forminator Forms – Contact Form, Payment Form & Custom Form Builder plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.35.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the custom form 'cre…
-
Medium 4.3
WP ULike <= 4.7.4 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Statistic Deletion
The WP ULike – The Ultimate Engagement Toolkit for Websites plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 4.7.4. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the wp_ulike_delete_history_api()…
-
Medium 6.1
dingfanzu CMS V1.0 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via the addPro parameter of the compon…
-
Medium 4.3
IBM Watson Studio Local cross-site request forgery
IBM Watson Studio Local 1.2.3 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 6.1
Vulnerability in the PeopleSoft Enterprise PeopleTools product of Oracle PeopleSoft (component: PIA Core Technology). S…
-
Medium 5.9
Hono vulnerable to bypass of CSRF Middleware by a request without Content-Type header.
Hono, a web framework, prior to version 4.6.5 is vulnerable to bypass of cross-site request forgery (CSRF) middleware by a request without Content-Type header. Although the CSRF middleware verifies the Content-Type Header, Hono always considers a request with…
-
Medium 5.5
Phpgurukul User Registration & Login and User Management System 3.2 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) …
-
Medium 4.3
Maintenance mode state change of App Key Value Store (KVStore) through Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
In Splunk Enterprise versions below 9.3.1, 9.2.3, and 9.1.6 and Splunk Cloud Platform versions below 9.2.2403.108, and 9.1.2312.204, a low-privileged user that does not hold the "admin" or "power" Splunk roles could change the maintenance mode state of App Ke…
-
Medium 4.7
Apache Roller: Weakness in CSRF protection allows privilege escalation
Cross-site Resource Forgery (CSRF), Privilege escalation vulnerability in Apache Roller. On multi-blog/user Roller websites, by default weblog owners are trusted to publish arbitrary weblog content and this combined with a deficiency in Roller's CSRF protecti…
-
Medium 4.3
ImagePress – Image Gallery <= 1.2.2 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Plugin Settings Update
The ImagePress – Image Gallery plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.2.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the 'imagepress_admin_page' function. This makes it possible f…
-
Medium 6.1
Easy PayPal Gift Certificate <= 1.2.3 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via wpppgc_plugin_options
The Easy PayPal Gift Certificate plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 1.2.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the 'wpppgc_plugin_options' function. This makes it possible for…
-
Medium 4.3
Newsletter, SMTP, Email marketing and Subscribe forms by Brevo (formely Sendinblue) <= 3.1.87 - Cross-Site Request Forgery
The Newsletter, SMTP, Email marketing and Subscribe forms by Brevo (formely Sendinblue) plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.1.87. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the …
-
Medium 5.3
Cross-Site Request Forgery in ampache
ampache is a web based audio/video streaming application and file manager. A CSRF attack can be performed in order to delete objects (Playlist, smartlist etc.). Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) is an attack that forces authenticated users to submit a request…
-
Medium 5.4
WordPress TinyPNG plugin <= 3.4.3 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in TinyPNG TinyPNG tiny-compress-images allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects TinyPNG: from n/a through <= 3.4.3.
-
Medium 6.9
Special:DeleteCargoTable and Special:SwitchCargoTable have no CSRF protection
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in The Wikimedia Foundation Mediawiki - Cargo allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Mediawiki - Cargo: from 3.6.X before 3.6.1.
-
Medium 5.3
Ultimate Member <= 2.8.6 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Membership Status Change
The Ultimate Member – User Profile, Registration, Login, Member Directory, Content Restriction & Membership Plugin plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.8.6. This is due to missing or incorrec…
-
Medium 4.3
HPE IceWall Agent products, Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
A security vulnerability in HPE IceWall Agent products could be exploited remotely to cause a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in the login flow.
-
Medium 6.8
Cross Site Request Forgery in Kiteworks OwnCloud
Cross site request forgery in Kiteworks OwnCloud allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge requests. If a request has no Authorization header, it is created with an empty string as value by a rewrite rule. The CSRF check is done by comparing the header valu…
-
Medium 4.3
bg5sbk MiniCMS page-edit.php cross-site request forgery
A vulnerability was found in bg5sbk MiniCMS 1.11. It has been classified as problematic. Affected is an unknown function of the file page-edit.php. The manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit…
-
Medium 4.3
bg5sbk MiniCMS post-edit.php cross-site request forgery
A vulnerability was found in bg5sbk MiniCMS up to 1.11 and classified as problematic. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file post-edit.php. The manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit…
-
Medium 6.5
MZK-DP300N firmware versions 1.04 and earlier contains a cross-site request forger vulnerability. Viewing a malicious p…
-
Medium 6.3
A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in kishan0725's Hospital Management System version 6.3.5. The …
-
Medium 6.5
Projectworld Online Voting System Version 1.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via voter.php. This vu…
-
Medium 4.6
Strawberry GraphQL Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Strawberry GraphQL is a library for creating GraphQL APIs. Prior to version 0.243.0, multipart file upload support as defined in the GraphQL multipart request specification was enabled by default in all Strawberry HTTP view integrations. This made all Strawbe…
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress Use Any Font plugin <= 6.3.08 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Dnesscarkey Use Any Font use-any-font allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Use Any Font: from n/a through <= 6.3.08.
-
Medium 5.4
WordPress GiveWP – Donation Plugin and Fundraising Platform plugin <= 3.15.1 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in StellarWP GiveWP give.This issue affects GiveWP: from n/a through <= 3.15.1.
-
Medium 4.3
Easy PayPal Events <= 1.2.1 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Arbitrary Post Deletion
The Easy PayPal Events plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.2.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the wpeevent_plugin_buttons() function. This makes it possible for una…
-
Medium 4.3
Premium Packages – Sell Digital Products Securely <= 5.9.1 - Cross-Site Request Forgery
The Premium Packages – Sell Digital Products Securely plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 5.9.1. This is due to missing nonce validation on the addRefund() function. This makes it possible for…
-
Medium 4.7
dingfanzu CMS 1.0 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability via /admin/doAdminAction.…
-
Medium 6.3
dingfanzu CMS 1.0 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via /admin/doAdminAction.php?act=addCate
-
Medium 6.5
Favicon Generator < 2.1 - Arbitrary File Deletion via CSRF
The Favicon Generator (CLOSED) WordPress plugin before 2.1 does not have CSRF and path validation in the output_sub_admin_page_0() function, allowing attackers to make logged in admins delete arbitrary files on the server
-
Medium 4.3
Blog Introduction <= 0.3.0 - Settings Update via CSRF
The blogintroduction-wordpress-plugin WordPress plugin through 0.3.0 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
ILC Thickbox <= 1.0 - Settings update via CSRF
The ILC Thickbox WordPress plugin through 1.0 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 6.5
Misiek Photo Album <= 1.4.3 - Album Deletion via CSRF
The Misiek Photo Album WordPress plugin through 1.4.3 does not have CSRF checks in some places, which could allow attackers to make logged in users delete arbitrary albums via a CSRF attack
-
Medium 6.5
Visual Sound <= 1.03 - Settings Update via CSRF
The Visual Sound WordPress plugin through 1.03 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
Easy Property Listings < 3.5.4 - Arbitrary Contact Deletion via CSRF
The Easy Property Listings WordPress plugin before 3.5.4 does not have CSRF check when deleting contacts in bulk, which could allow attackers to make a logged in admin delete them via a CSRF attack
-
Medium 4.3
Tutor LMS <= 2.7.4 - Cross-Site Request Forgery via 'addon_enable_disable'
The Tutor LMS plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 2.7.4. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the 'addon_enable_disable' function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated att…
-
Medium 6.5
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in multiple Alps System Integration products and the OEM products allow…
-
Medium 6.5
AZIndex <= 0.8.1 - Index Deletion via CSRF
The AZIndex WordPress plugin through 0.8.1 does not have CSRF checks in some places, which could allow attackers to make logged in admin delete arbitrary indexes via a CSRF attack
-
Medium 4.3
SourceCodester Insurance Management System cross-site request forgery
A vulnerability has been found in SourceCodester Insurance Management System 1.0 and classified as problematic. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality. The manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery. The attack can be launched remote…