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
6,776 results · Feed
-
High 8.2
Vulnerability in the Oracle MES for Process Manufacturing product of Oracle E-Business Suite (component: Internal Opera…
-
Critical 9.6
Vulnerability in the Oracle Banking Trade Finance Process Management product of Oracle Financial Services Applications …
-
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…
-
High 7.6
Vulnerability in the Oracle Work in Process product of Oracle E-Business Suite (component: Internal Operations). Suppor…
-
Medium 6.1
Vulnerability in the Oracle Knowledge Management product of Oracle E-Business Suite (component: Search). Supported vers…
-
Medium 6.1
Vulnerability in the Oracle iSupport product of Oracle E-Business Suite (component: Internal Operations). Supported ver…
-
High 8.8
Vulnerability in the Oracle WebCenter Content product of Oracle Fusion Middleware (component: Content Server). Supporte…
-
High 7.5
Vulnerability in the Oracle WebCenter Content product of Oracle Fusion Middleware (component: Content Server). Supporte…
-
High 8.0
Vulnerability in the Oracle WebCenter Content product of Oracle Fusion Middleware (component: Web Content Management). …
-
High 8.0
Vulnerability in the Oracle WebCenter Content product of Oracle Fusion Middleware (component: Web Content Management). …
-
High 8.0
Vulnerability in the Oracle WebCenter Content product of Oracle Fusion Middleware (component: Web Content Management). …
-
High 7.6
Vulnerability in the Oracle WebCenter Content product of Oracle Fusion Middleware (component: Content Server). Supporte…
-
High 8.0
Vulnerability in the Oracle WebCenter Content product of Oracle Fusion Middleware (component: Content Server). Supporte…
-
High 8.3
Vulnerability in the Oracle WebCenter Content product of Oracle Fusion Middleware (component: Content Server). Supporte…
-
High 8.8
Vulnerability in the Oracle WebCenter Content product of Oracle Fusion Middleware (component: Content Server). Supporte…
-
High 8.8
Vulnerability in the Oracle WebCenter Content product of Oracle Fusion Middleware (component: Content Server). Supporte…
-
High 8.8
Vulnerability in the Oracle WebCenter Content product of Oracle Fusion Middleware (component: Content Server). Supporte…
-
High 8.8
Vulnerability in the Oracle WebCenter Content product of Oracle Fusion Middleware (component: Content Server). Supporte…
-
High 8.8
Vulnerability in the Oracle WebCenter Content product of Oracle Fusion Middleware (component: Content Server). Supporte…
-
High 8.8
Vulnerability in the Oracle WebCenter Content product of Oracle Fusion Middleware (component: Content Server). Supporte…
-
High 8.8
Vulnerability in the Oracle WebCenter Content product of Oracle Fusion Middleware (component: Content Server). Supporte…
-
Critical 9.3
Vulnerability in the Oracle WebCenter Content product of Oracle Fusion Middleware (component: Content Server). Supporte…
-
Low 3.5
Vulnerability in the Oracle Enterprise Manager Base Platform product of Oracle Enterprise Manager (component: Security …
-
Medium 4.3
djangoSIGE 1.10 CSRF via GET-based Order Cancellation Views
djangoSIGE through 1.10 (commit a6fe7e8) contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to cancel sales or purchase orders on behalf of authenticated users by exploiting order-cancellation logic implemented inside HT…
-
Medium 5.4
A CSRF vulnerability exists in the `zone-include.php` script in Revive Adserver 6.0.7. Linking and unlinking banners or…
-
Medium 5.9
Network-AI: ApprovalInbox HTTP server has no authentication — anyone can approve pending agent actions
Network-AI, a TypeScript/Node.js multi-agent orchestrator, has a shipped, exported, documented feature called `ApprovalInbox` (`lib/approval-inbox.ts`). It is the network surface of the human-in-the-loop Approval Gate, which `ApprovalGate` uses to require exp…
-
Medium 4.3
dataCycle State-Changing GET Endpoints Enable CSRF
dataCycle is a data management system for centrally storing, managing, searching, finding, and distributing data. In dataCycle-CORE, the module handling core processing and framework rules, before and including version 25.07.3, the application exposes server-…
-
Medium 5.4CVE-2026-13156 Public exploit
MailerSend - Official SMTP Integration < 1.0.8 - Settings Deletion and Plugin Deactivation via CSRF
The MailerSend WordPress plugin before 1.0.8 does not perform a nonce check on its configuration-delete action (it verifies the manage_options capability but ignores the nonce), so an attacker can trick a logged-in administrator into visiting a crafted page t…
-
Medium 4.3
geex-arts django-jet OAuth cross-site request forgery
A weakness has been identified in geex-arts django-jet up to 1.0.8. Affected is an unknown function of the component OAuth Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to cross-site request forgery. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been …
-
Medium 4.3
Sipeed PicoClaw auth.go cross-site request forgery
A vulnerability was determined in Sipeed PicoClaw up to 0.2.9. The affected element is an unknown function of the file web/backend/api/auth.go. Executing a manipulation can lead to cross-site request forgery. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit h…
-
Medium 4.3
W3SC Elementor to Zoho CRM <= 2.2.0 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Settings Update
The W3SC Elementor to Zoho CRM 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 storeInfo function. This makes it possible for unauthentic…
-
Low 2.1
Symfony UX: CSRF Protection Bypass in symfony/ux-live-component — Accept Header is CORS-Safelisted
Symfony UX is a JavaScript ecosystem for Symfony. From 2.22.0 until 2.36.0 and 3.1.0, Symfony\UX\LiveComponent\EventListener\LiveComponentSubscriber::isLiveComponentRequest() gates #[LiveAction] invocations on Accept: application/vnd.live-component+html, but …
-
High 8.8
Joomla Extension - joomdonation.com - User enumeration in Events Booking < 5.8.0
Joomla Extension - joomdonation.com - User enumeration in Events Booking < 5.8.0 - The Joomla extension Events Booking prior version 5.8.0 had an frontend file upload endpoint that lacked CSRF protection.
-
Medium 5.4
grav-plugin-login < 3.8.11 CSRF via regenerate2FASecret
grav-plugin-login before 3.8.11 contains a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the login.regenerate2FASecret frontend task, which regenerates and persists a new TOTP secret for the authenticated session user without any anti-CSRF nonce or Origi…
-
High 8.8
Loco Translate <= 2.8.5 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Remote Code Execution via 'template' Parameter
The Loco Translate plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.8.5. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the execTemplate function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated atta…
-
Medium 5.4
LatePoint < 5.6.3 - Multiple Privileged Actions via CSRF
The Appointment Booking Plugin WordPress plugin before 5.6.3 does not validate a CSRF nonce on several state-changing actions handled by its central request dispatcher, allowing attackers to perform privileged actions, such as overwriting the booking-form con…
-
Medium 4.3
Landing Page Builder <= 1.5.3.6 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to ulpb_admin_data AJAX Action
The Landing Page Builder – Coming Soon page, Maintenance Mode, Lead Page, WordPress Landing Pages plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.5.3.6. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validat…