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
6,780 results · Feed
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress Paid Membership Subscriptions plugin <= 2.10.4 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Cozmoslabs Paid Member Subscriptions.This issue affects Paid Member Subscriptions: from n/a through 2.10.4.
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress Customize My Account for WooCommerce plugin <= 1.8.3 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in SysBasics Customize My Account for WooCommerce.This issue affects Customize My Account for WooCommerce: from n/a through 1.8.3.
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress Legal Pages plugin <= 1.3.7 - CSRF + Broken Access Control vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF), Incorrect Authorization vulnerability in wpWax Legal Pages.This issue affects Legal Pages: from n/a through 1.3.7.
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress WP Simple Booking Calendar plugin <= 2.0.8.4 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Veribo, Roland Murg WP Simple Booking Calendar.This issue affects WP Simple Booking Calendar: from n/a through 2.0.8.4.
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress HUSKY plugin <= 1.3.4.3 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in realmag777 HUSKY – Products Filter for WooCommerce (formerly WOOF).This issue affects HUSKY – Products Filter for WooCommerce (formerly WOOF): from n/a through 1.3.4.3.
-
Medium 4.3
Surya2Developer Hostel Management Service Password Change change-password.php cross-site request forgery
A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, has been found in Surya2Developer Hostel Management Service 1.0. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file /change-password.php of the component Password Change Handler. The manipulation of th…
-
Medium 4.5
IBM Integration Bus for z/OS cross-site request forgery
IBM Integration Bus for z/OS 10.1 through 10.1.0.3 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. IBM X-Force ID: 284564.
-
High 8.1
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in API and login in your_spotify
your_spotify is an open source, self hosted Spotify tracking dashboard. YourSpotify versions < 1.9.0 do not protect the API and login flow against Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF). Attackers can use this to execute CSRF attacks on victims, allowing them to r…
-
Medium 4.3
SMS Alert Order Notifications – WooCommerce <= 3.6.9 - Cross-Site Request Forgery
The SMS Alert Order Notifications – WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.6.9. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the processBulkAction function. This makes it…
-
Medium 4.3
Play.ht – Make Your Blog Posts Accessible With Text to Speech Audio <= 3.6.4 - Cross-Site Request Forgery
The Play.ht – Make Your Blog Posts Accessible With Text to Speech Audio plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.6.4. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on several functions. Th…
-
Medium 4.3
Comments Extra Fields For Post,Pages and CPT <= 5.0 - Cross-Site Request Forgery
The Comments Extra Fields For Post,Pages and CPT plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 5.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on several ajax actions. This makes it possible f…
-
Medium 5.4
Related Posts for WordPress <= 2.2.1 - Cross-Site Request Forgery
The Related Posts for WordPress plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.2.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the handle_create_link() function. This makes it possible for…
-
Medium 4.3
MainWP Dashboard <= 4.6.0.1 - Cross-Site Request Forgery via posting_bulk
The MainWP Dashboard – WordPress Manager for Multiple Websites Maintenance plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 4.6.0.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the 'posting_bul…
-
Medium 6.5
Cross-Site Request Forgery vulnerability in Movistar 4G router
Cross-Site Request Forgery vulnerability in Movistar's 4G router affecting version ES_WLD71-T1_v2.0.201820. This vulnerability allows an attacker to force an end user to execute unwanted actions in a web application in which they are currently authenticated.
-
High 8.8
DedeCMS v5.7 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability via the component /dede/articl…
-
Medium 6.3
DedeCMS v5.7 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability via the component /dede/articl…
-
High 8.8
DedeCMS v5.7 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability via the component /dede/catalo…
-
Medium 6.1
DedeCMS v5.7 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability via /dede/freelist_main.php.
-
High 8.8
DedeCMS v5.7 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability via /dede/diy_edit.php
-
Medium 6.1
DedeCMS v5.7 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability via the component /dede/temple…
-
Medium 6.1
DedeCMS v5.7 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability via the component /dede/catalo…
-
Medium 5.4
DedeCMS v5.7 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability via /dede/freelist_edit.php.
-
Medium 6.1
DedeCMS v5.7 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability via /dede/article_keywords_mai…
-
Medium 5.5
DedeCMS v5.7 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability via the component /dede/archiv…
-
Medium 6.3
DedeCMS v5.7 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability via /dede/sys_cache_up.php.
-
Medium 6.1
DedeCMS v5.7 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability via /dede/plus_edit.php.
-
High 8.8
DedeCMS v5.7 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability via the component /dede/module…
-
Medium 5.4
DedeCMS v5.7 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability via /dede/media_edit.php.
-
High 8.8
DedeCMS v5.7 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability via /dede/mychannel_edit.php.
-
Medium 5.5
DedeCMS v5.7 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability via the component /dede/media_…
-
High 8.8
DedeCMS v5.7 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability via the component /dede/articl…
-
Medium 4.3
Easy Social Feed <= 6.5.4 - Cross-Site Request Forgery
The Easy Social Feed – Social Photos Gallery – Post Feed – Like Box plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 6.5.4. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the save_groups_list func…
-
Medium 4.3
Tutor LMS – eLearning and online course solution <= 2.6.1 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Plugin Deactivation and Data Erase
The Tutor LMS – eLearning and online course solution plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.6.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the erase_tutor_data() function. This ma…
-
Medium 5.4
Easy Social Feed <= 6.5.4 - Cross-Site Request Forgery
The Easy Social Feed – Social Photos Gallery – Post Feed – Like Box plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 6.5.4. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the esf_insta_save_access…
-
Medium 4.3
LadiApp <= 4.4 - Cross-Site Request Forgery via save_config()
The LadiApp plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery due to a missing nonce check on the save_config() function in versions up to, and including, 4.3. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the 'ladipage_config'…
-
Medium 4.3
LadiApp: Landing Page, PopupX, Marketing Automation, Affiliate Marketing… <= 4.4 - Cross-Site Request Forgery via publish_lp()
The LadiApp plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery due to a missing nonce check on the publish_lp() function hooked via an AJAX action in versions up to, and including, 4.4. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to cha…
-
Medium 4.3
LadiApp: Landing Page, PopupX, Marketing Automation, Affiliate Marketing… <= 4.4 - Cross-Site Request Forgery via init_endpoint
The LadiApp plugn for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery due to a missing nonce check on the init_endpoint() function hooked via 'init' in versions up to, and including, 4.4. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify a …
-
Medium 4.3
LadiApp <= 4.4 - Cross-Site Request Forgery via ladiflow_save_hook()
The LadiApp plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery due to a missing nonce check on the ladiflow_save_hook() function in versions up to, and including, 4.4. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the 'ladiflow_…
-
Medium 4.3
Dreamer CMS toEdit cross-site request forgery
A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, was found in Dreamer CMS 4.1.3. Affected is an unknown function of the file /admin/menu/toEdit. The manipulation of the argument id leads to cross-site request forgery. It is possible to launch the attack …
-
Medium 4.3
Bdtask Hospital AutoManager Update Bill Page cross-site request forgery
A vulnerability has been found in Bdtask Hospital AutoManager up to 20240227 and classified as problematic. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the file /billing/bill/edit/ of the component Update Bill Page. The manipulation leads to cross-site request…