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 5.4
Cross-Site Request Forgery via Ajax Processor Endpoints in Multiple WSO2 Products Enables Unauthorized Actions
The Ajax processor within the Carbon console fails to adequately protect state-changing operations from Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks. Specifically, it utilizes the HTTP GET method for these operations, and while the SameSite=Lax cookie attribute …
-
Medium 6.5
Google Authenticator < 0.56 - 2FA Secret Overwrite via CSRF
The Google Authenticator WordPress plugin before 0.56 does not verify a CSRF nonce when saving its two-factor setup, allowing attackers to trick a logged-in user into overwriting their own 2FA secret with an attacker-controlled value, which enables two-factor…
-
Medium 5.3
PeproDev WooCommerce Receipt Uploader <= 2.8.0 - Unauthenticated Order Receipt Tampering via IDOR
PeproDev WooCommerce Receipt Uploader (PeproDev WooCommerce Receipt Uploader WordPress plugin through 2.8.0 slug: pepro-bacs-receipt-upload-for-woocommerce), all versions up to and including 2.8.0 (latest on wordpress.org; no fixed version available at the ti…
-
Medium 6.8
Livebook Teams identity callback lacks state binding, allowing login CSRF
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in livebook-dev livebook allows an attacker to authenticate a victim's browser session under the attacker's own Livebook Teams identity. When Livebook is configured to use Livebook Teams for identity, Livebook.Z…
-
Medium 4.2
A cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Jenkins SCM-Manager Plugin 1.11.1 and earlier allows attackers to …
-
Medium 6.5
OpenBK7231T CSRF in /cfg_wifi_set Leading to Implicit Web Password Disable and WiFi Hijack
OpenBK7231T's /cfg_wifi_set endpoint (src/httpserver/http_fns.c) accepts configuration changes via a plain GET request with no CSRF token. If the parameter is absent from the request, an else-branch silently clears the device's web admin password to an empty …
-
Medium 4.3
MLS Import < 7.0.4 - Subscriber+ Sensitive Information Disclosure via mlsimport_logger_per_item
The MLSImport: IDX Plugin & MLS Plugin for Real Estate Listings WordPress plugin before 7.0.4 does not have authorisation and CSRF checks in one of its AJAX actions, allowing any authenticated user, such as a subscriber, to read the contents of the MLSImport:…
-
Medium 4.3
GDPR Cookie Compliance < 5.1.0 - Cookie Deletion and Forced Logout via CSRF
The GDPR Cookie Compliance WordPress plugin before 5.1.0 expires the visitor's cookies from an action that is reachable without authentication and performs no request-origin check, allowing an attacker to log any user out and delete the site's cookies by luri…
-
Medium 4.3
RackTables cross-site request forgery
A security vulnerability has been detected in RackTables up to 0.22.0/e5fff9f8aab339798ed47e8c6d7d977ed97a82bd. This vulnerability affects unknown code. The manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. T…
-
Medium 4.6
Admidio before 5.0.11 CSRF via category-report preferences
Admidio before 5.0.11 does not validate the adm_csrf_token in modules/category-report/preferences.php, which performs persistent Category Report configuration changes based on GET parameters (delete and copy). An attacker can trick an authenticated administra…
-
Medium 5.4
Frontend File Manager Plugin <= 23.6 - File Metadata Update via CSRF
The Frontend File Manager Plugin WordPress plugin through 23.6 does not perform nonce validation on one of its file-metadata update actions, allowing an attacker to modify the metadata of a logged-in user's uploaded file via a CSRF attack, which can be levera…
-
Medium 5.3
better-auth before 1.6.2 OAuth State Validation Bypass
better-auth versions before 1.6.2 fail to validate the OAuth state parameter against the stored nonce when using cookie-backed state storage without PKCE. Attackers can forge the state parameter and supply an attacker-controlled authorization code to create a…
-
Medium 4.3
Theme Editor <= 3.1 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to CSS Modification
The Theme Editor plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.1. This is due to missing nonce validation on the ms_update AJAX action. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify c…
-
Medium 4.3
Podlove Podcast Publisher < 4.5.3 - Podcast Contributor/Group/Role Creation and Deletion via CSRF
The Podlove Podcast Publisher WordPress plugin before 4.5.3 does not perform nonce validation on some of its administrative create and delete actions, allowing attackers to create rogue records or delete legitimate ones via a forged request (CSRF) when a logg…
-
Medium 6.9
CSRF in PHP Jabbers scripts
A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability has been identified in multiple PHP Jabbers scripts. The lack of CSRF tokens or appropriate SameSite attributes allows an attacker to send unauthorized requests in the context of an authenticated user, leading…
-
Medium 6.1CVE-2026-44613 Public exploit
Apache Zeppelin: Cross-site request forgery in REST and WebSocket request handling
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Apache Zeppelin. The default CORS configuration allowed cross-origin state-changing requests and accepted text/plain request bodies, allowing an attacker who lures an authenticated user to a …
-
Medium 4.3
FuseWP <= 1.1.24.2 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Sync Rule Status Toggle
The FuseWP plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.1.24.2. This is due to missing nonce verification on the toggle_sync_status() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to…
-
Medium 6.5
Inappropriate implementation in DevTools in Google Chrome prior to 151.0.7922.72 allowed a remote attacker who convince…
-
Medium 4.3
Facturación Electrónica Costa Rica <= 2.0.2 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Plugin Settings Update
The Facturación Electrónica Costa Rica 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 (global scope, included by fvcr_admin_page_html) f…
-
Medium 6.9
nebula-mesh: Web UI lacks CSRF tokens on /ui/* mutating endpoints
nebula-mesh is a self-hosted control plane for Slack Nebula mesh virtual private network. Prior to version 0.3.3, every /ui/* POST / PUT / PATCH / DELETE route processes the request as soon as the session cookie validates. SameSite=Lax on the session cookie p…
-
Medium 4.3
Cookie Banner for GDPR / CCPA – WPLP Cookie Consent <= 4.3.7 - Cross-Site Request Forgery via Bulk Action to Delete/Resolve Entries
The Cookie Banner for GDPR / CCPA – WPLP Cookie Consent plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 4.3.7. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the process_bulk_action function. Thi…
-
Medium 6.5
org.xwiki.contrib:discussions-server has Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) issue that makes it possible to delete messages
### Impact It's possible to forge a request to delete a message. ### Patches The problem has been patched in version 2.0-rc-1 of Discussion Extension. ### Workarounds There's no easy workaround except upgrading. ### References https://jira.xwiki.org/browse/DI…
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress Insert Headers and Footers Code – HT Script plugin <= 1.1.8 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Unauthenticated Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in Insert Headers and Footers Code – HT Script <= 1.1.8 versions.
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress WP Google Review Slider plugin <= 18.4 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Unauthenticated Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in WP Google Review Slider <= 18.4 versions.
-
Medium 6.5
WordPress افزونه حمل و نقل ووکامرس (پست پیشتاز و سفارشی، پیک موتوری) plugin <= 4.4.5 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Unauthenticated Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in افزونه حمل و نقل ووکامرس (پست پیشتاز و سفارشی، پیک موتوری) <= 4.4.5 versions.
-
Medium 5.4
WordPress WP Activity Log and WP Activity Log Premium plugins <= 5.6.4 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Melapress WP Activity Log and Melapress WP Activity Log Premium allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects WP Activity Log: through 5.6.4; WP Activity Log Premium: through 5.6.4.
-
Medium 5.4
WordPress GiveWP plugin <= 4.16.3 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Unauthenticated Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in GiveWP <= 4.16.3 versions.
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress Zarinpal Gateway plugin <= 5.1.0 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Unauthenticated Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in Zarinpal Gateway <= 5.1.0 versions.
-
Medium 5.4
WordPress Simple Link Directory Pro plugin <= 15.0.8 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Unauthenticated Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in Simple Link Directory Pro <= 15.0.8 versions.
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress WP Accessibility Helper (WAH) plugin <= 0.6.6 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Unauthenticated Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in WP Accessibility Helper (WAH) <= 0.6.6 versions.
-
Medium 5.4
Joomla Extension - regularlabs.com - Inconsistent CSRF token checks / privilege checks in Cache Cleaner extension
Joomla Extension - regularlabs.com - Inconsistent CSRF token checks / privilege checks in Cache Cleaner extension - Administrator URL purges did not consistently require a valid token and cache-management permission.
-
Medium 5.4
Vulnerability in the Oracle Work in Process product of Oracle E-Business Suite (component: Internal Operations). Suppor…
-
Medium 6.1
Vulnerability in the Oracle Contracts Integration product of Oracle E-Business Suite (component: Internal Operations). …
-
Medium 5.4
Vulnerability in the Oracle HRMS (Japanese) product of Oracle E-Business Suite (component: Oracle Payroll Japanese). Su…
-
Medium 6.4
Vulnerability in the Oracle Security Service product of Oracle Fusion Middleware (component: Oracle SSL API). The suppo…
-
Medium 6.5CVE-2026-61082 Public exploit
Vulnerability in the MySQL Connectors product of Oracle MySQL (component: Connector/J). Supported versions that are aff…
-
Medium 5.4
Vulnerability in the Oracle Flow Manufacturing product of Oracle E-Business Suite (component: Internal Operations). Sup…
-
Medium 5.4
Vulnerability in the Oracle Transportation Execution product of Oracle E-Business Suite (component: Internal Operations…
-
Medium 5.4
Vulnerability in the Oracle Property Manager product of Oracle E-Business Suite (component: Internal Operations). Suppo…
-
Medium 6.1
Vulnerability in the Oracle Knowledge Management product of Oracle E-Business Suite (component: Search). Supported vers…