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
WordPress Master Slider plugin <= 3.9.10 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Averta Master Slider.This issue affects Master Slider: from n/a through 3.9.10.
-
Medium 6.8
Paradox IP150 Internet Module Cross-Site Request Forgery
The Paradox IP150 Internet Module in version 1.40.00 is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks due to a lack of countermeasures and the use of the HTTP method `GET` to introduce changes in the system.
-
Medium 5.4
Paid Memberships Pro <= 2.12.10 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Membership Modification
The Paid Memberships Pro – Content Restriction, User Registration, & Paid Subscriptions plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.12.10. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on mul…
-
Medium 4.3
Custom Product List Table <= 3.0.0 - Cross-Site Request Forgery
The Custom Product List Table plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.0.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation when modifying products. This makes it possible for unauthenticate…
-
Medium 4.3
Simple Sitemap <= 3.5.13 - Cross-Site Request Forgery via admin_notices
The Simple Sitemap – Create a Responsive HTML Sitemap plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.5.13. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation in the 'admin_notices' hook found in clas…
-
Medium 4.3
Schema App Structured Data <= 2.2.0 - Cross-Site Request Forgery
The Schema App Structured Data plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.2.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the MarkUpdate function. This makes it possible for unauthenti…
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress Grab & Save plugin <= 1.0.4 - Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Lim Kai Yang Grab & Save.This issue affects Grab & Save: from n/a through 1.0.4.
-
Medium 4.4
CSRF in restart_program in parisneo/lollms-webui
A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the restart_program function of the parisneo/lollms-webui v9.6. This vulnerability allows attackers to trick users into performing unintended actions, such as resetting the program without their know…
-
Medium 6.5
Cross-Site Request Forgery vulnerability in Comtrend router
Cross-Site Request Forgery vulnerability in Comtrend router WLD71-T1_v2.0.201820, affecting the GRG-4280us version. This vulnerability allows an attacker to force an end user to execute unwanted actions in a web application to which he is authenticated.
-
Medium 4.0
CSRF in clear_personality_files_list in parisneo/lollms-webui
A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the clear_personality_files_list function of the parisneo/lollms-webui v9.6. The vulnerability arises from the use of a GET request to clear personality files list, which lacks proper CSRF protection…
-
Medium 5.4
Emlog pro2.3 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via twitter.php which can be used with a XSS vulnerabil…
-
Medium 5.4
BOSSCMS v3.10 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in name="head_code" or name="foot_code."
-
Medium 5.4
WordPress WP-Recall plugin <= 16.26.6 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Plechev Andrey WP-Recall.This issue affects WP-Recall: from n/a through 16.26.6.
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress ElasticPress plugin <= 5.1.1 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in 10up ElasticPress elasticpress.This issue affects ElasticPress: from n/a through <= 5.1.1.
-
Medium 5.4
WordPress Analytify plugin <= 5.2.3 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Analytify.This issue affects Analytify: from n/a through 5.2.3.
-
Medium 4.7
Zend-Diactoros URL Rewrite vulnerability
zend-diactoros (and, by extension, Expressive), zend-http (and, by extension, Zend Framework MVC projects), and zend-feed (specifically, its PubSubHubbub sub-component) each contain a potential URL rewrite exploit. In each case, marshaling a request URI inclu…
-
Medium 4.7
Zendframework URL Rewrite vulnerability
zend-diactoros (and, by extension, Expressive), zend-http (and, by extension, Zend Framework MVC projects), and zend-feed (specifically, its PubSubHubbub sub-component) each contain a potential URL rewrite exploit. In each case, marshaling a request URI inclu…
-
Medium 5.4
idccms v1.35 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via the component /admin/idcProType_deal.php…
-
Medium 5.4
idccms v1.35 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via the component admin/type_deal.php?mudi=d…
-
Medium 5.4
idccms v1.35 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via the component admin/type_deal.php?mudi=a…
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress Pure Chat plugin <= 2.22 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Pure Chat by Ruby Pure Chat.This issue affects Pure Chat: from n/a through 2.22.
-
Medium 4.3
Mollie Forms <= 2.6.13 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Arbitrary Post Duplication
The Mollie Forms plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.6.13. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the duplicateForm() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated at…
-
Medium 5.4
idccms V1.35 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via /admin/vpsCompany_deal.php?mudi=add&nohr…
-
Medium 5.4
idccms V1.35 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via admin/vpsCompany_deal.php?mudi=del
-
Medium 5.4
idccms V1.35 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via the component admin/vpsClass_deal.php?mu…
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress Integration for Constant Contact and Contact Form 7, WPForms, Elementor, Ninja Forms plugin <= 1.1.5 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in CRM Perks. Integration for Contact Form 7 and Constant Contact.This issue affects Integration for Contact Form 7 and Constant Contact: from n/a through 1.1.5.
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress ActiveDEMAND plugin <= 0.2.43 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in JumpDEMAND Inc. ActiveDEMAND.This issue affects ActiveDEMAND: from n/a through 0.2.43.
-
Medium 4.3
Shield Security – Smart Bot Blocking & Intrusion Prevention Security <= 19.1.13 - Cross-Site Request Forgery
The Shield Security – Smart Bot Blocking & Intrusion Prevention Security plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 19.1.13. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the exec function.…
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress Uploadcare File Uploader and Adaptive Delivery plugin <= 3.0.11 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Uploadcare Uploadcare File Uploader and Adaptive Delivery (beta) uploadcare.This issue affects Uploadcare File Uploader and Adaptive Delivery (beta): from n/a through 3.0.11.
-
Medium 4.3
Comparison Slider <= 1.0.5 - Cross-Site Request Forgery
The Comparison Slider plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.5. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on several functions hooked to AJAX actions. This makes it possible for un…
-
Medium 4.3
WP To Do <= 1.3.0 - Cross-Site Request Forgery via wptodo_settings
The WP To Do plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.3.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the wptodo_settings() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attac…
-
Medium 4.3
WP To Do <= 1.3.0 - Cross-Site Request Forgery via wptodo_manage()
The WP To Do plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.3.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the wptodo_manage() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attacke…
-
Medium 4.3
WP To Do <= 1.3.0 - Cross-Site Request Forgery via wptodo_addcomment
The WP To Do plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.3.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the wptodo_addcomment function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attac…
-
Medium 6.5
AffiEasy <= 1.1.6 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Various Actions
The AffiEasy plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.1.6. This is due to plugin improperly releasing the tagged and patched version of the plugin - the vulnerable version is used as the core fil…
-
Medium 6.5
Sylius Resource Bundle Cross-Site Request Forgery vulnerability
Sylius 1.0.0 to 1.0.16, 1.1.0 to 1.1.8, 1.2.0 to 1.2.1 versions of AdminBundle and ResourceBundle are affected by this security issue. This issue has been fixed in Sylius 1.0.17, 1.1.9 and 1.2.2. Development branch for 1.3 release has also been fixed. ### Des…
-
Medium 5.4
Cross Site Request Forgery vulnerability in iManager
Cross-Site Request Forgery vulnerability has been discovered in OpenText™ iManager 3.2.6.0200. This could lead to sensitive information disclosure.
-
Medium 4.3
SourceCodester Simple Online Bidding System HTTP POST Request save_product cross-site request forgery
A vulnerability classified as problematic was found in SourceCodester Simple Online Bidding System 1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function save_product of the file /admin/index.php?page=manage_product of the component HTTP POST Request Handler. Th…
-
Medium 6.4
Business Card <= 1.0.0 - Arbitrary Card Deletion via CSRF
The Business Card WordPress plugin through 1.0.0 does not have CSRF checks in some places, which could allow attackers to make logged in users perform unwanted actions such as deleting cards via CSRF attacks
-
Medium 5.7
Post actions can run playbook checklist task commands
Mattermost versions 9.5.x <= 9.5.3, 9.6.x <= 9.6.1 and 8.1.x <= 8.1.12 fail to perform proper input validation on post actions which allows an attacker to run a playbook checklist task command as another user via creating and sharing a deceptive post action t…
-
Medium 4.3
WP-ViperGB <= 1.6.1 - Cross-Site Request Forgery
The WP-ViperGB plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.6.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation when saving plugin settings. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers…