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
-
Low 3.5
Admidio: CSRF on Admin Preferences Triggers Unauthorized Backup, .htaccess Write, and Email Send
Admidio is an open-source user management solution. Prior to version 5.0.9, several administrative operations in Admidio's preferences module (database backup, test email, htaccess generation) fire via GET requests with no CSRF token validation. Because SameS…
-
High 7.1
Masa CMS CSRF in site bundle creation allows unauthorized site data export
Masa CMS is a content management system forked from Mura CMS. In versions 7.5.2 and earlier, the createBundle method in `csettings.cfc` does not properly validate anti-CSRF tokens for site bundle creation requests. An attacker can craft a malicious webpage or…
-
High 8.7
Masa CMS CSRF in content restoration allows unauthorized restoration of deleted content
Masa CMS is a content management system forked from Mura CMS. In versions 7.5.2 and earlier, the `cTrash.restore` function does not properly validate anti-CSRF tokens for content restoration requests. An attacker can trick a logged-in administrator to submit …
-
High 7.2
Masa CMS CSRF in trash management allows unauthorized permanent deletion of deleted content
Masa CMS is a content management system forked from Mura CMS. In versions 7.5.2 and earlier, the cTrash.empty function does not validate anti-CSRF tokens for trash management requests. An attacker can induce a logged-in administrator to submit a forged reques…
-
High 7.1
Masa CMS CSRF in user address management allows unauthorized address changes
Masa CMS is a content management system forked from Mura CMS. In versions 7.5.2 and earlier, the cUsers.updateAddress function does not properly validate anti-CSRF tokens for user address management operations. An attacker can induce a logged-in administrator…
-
Low 2.6
HCL BigFix Service Management (SM) is affected by a Cross‑Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability.
HHCL BigFix Service Management (SM) is affected by a Cross‑Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability. This could lead to unauthorized changes or exposure of sensitive data.
-
Medium 6.1
Publish 2 Ping.fm <= 1.1 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via 'wpPingPingKey' Parameter
The Publish 2 Ping.fm plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the '/wp-admin/options-general.php?page=admin.php' page. This makes it po…
-
Medium 4.3
DX Sources <= 2.0.1 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Settings Update
The DX Sources plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.0.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the settings_page_build function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated a…
-
Medium 4.3
addfreespace <= 0.1.3 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via Settings Page
The addfreespace plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 0.1.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on a function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update s…
-
Medium 6.5
goshs has Cross-Origin Arbitrary File Write via Missing CSRF on PUT and Wildcard CORS
goshs is a SimpleHTTPServer written in Go. Prior to version 2.0.2, the PUT upload handler (httpserver/updown.go) lacks the CSRF token validation that was added to the POST upload handler during the CVE-2026-40883 fix. Combined with the unconditional Access-Co…
-
Medium 4.3
Ultimate Dashboard <= 3.8.14 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Module Activation/Deactivation
The Ultimate Dashboard plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.8.14. This is due to a flawed nonce validation conditional in the 'handle_module_actions' function. This makes it possible for unau…
-
High 8.8
WP Editor <= 1.2.9.2 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Remote Code Execution via Plugin and Theme File Editor
The WP Editor plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.2.9.2. This is due to missing nonce verification in the 'add_plugins_page' and 'add_themes_page' functions. This makes it possible for unaut…
-
High 8.8CVE-2026-36960 Public exploit
A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the web management interface of the U-SPEED N300 Rounter V1…
-
High 8.8CVE-2026-36956 Public exploit
A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the web management interface of the Dbit N300 T1 Pro wirele…
-
Medium 4.3
VideoFlow Digital Video Protection DVP 2.10 - Authenticated Remote Code Execution
VideoFlow Digital Video Protection DVP 2.10 contains an authenticated remote code execution vulnerability that allows authenticated attackers to execute arbitrary system commands by exploiting a cross-site request forgery flaw in the web management interface.…
-
Medium 5.3
Merge PACS 7.0 Cross-Site Request Forgery via merge-viewer
Merge PACS 7.0 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to perform unauthorized actions by crafting malicious HTML forms targeting the merge-viewer endpoint. Attackers can submit POST requests to /servlet/actions/merge-viewer/…
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress Barcode Scanner with Inventory & Order Manager plugin <= 1.11.0 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Dmitry V. (CEO of "UKR Solution") Barcode Scanner with Inventory & Order Manager barcode-scanner-lite-pos-to-manage-products-inventory-and-orders allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Barcode S…
-
Medium 4.3
code-projects Invoice System in Laravel cross-site request forgery
A security vulnerability has been detected in code-projects Invoice System in Laravel 1.0. This affects an unknown function. Such manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been disclosed publicl…
-
High 8.8CVE-2026-38934 Public exploit
Cross Site Request Forgery vulnerability in diskoverdata diskover-community v.2.3.5. and before allows a remote attacke…
-
Medium 5.4
Authlib: Cross-site request forging when using cache
Authlib is a Python library which builds OAuth and OpenID Connect servers. Prior to 1.6.11, there is no CSRF protection on the cache feature in authlib.integrations.starlette_client.OAuth. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.6.11.
-
Medium 4.3
Taqnix <= 1.0.3 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Account Deletion via 'taqnix_delete_my_account' AJAX Action
The Taqnix plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.3. This is due to a missing nonce verification in the taqnix_delete_my_account() function, where the check_ajax_referer() call is explicitly …
-
Medium 6.6
Frappe Press has an unsafe HTTP method / CSRF-adjacent issue on API secret generation
Press, a Frappe custom app that runs Frappe Cloud, manages infrastructure, subscription, marketplace, and software-as-a-service (SaaS).`press.api.account.create_api_secret` is prone to CSRF-like exploits. This endpoint writes to database and it is also access…
-
High 8.1
SenseLive X3050 Cross-Site request forgery
A vulnerability in SenseLive X3050's web management interface allows state-changing operations to be triggered without proper Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) protections. Because the application does not enforce server-side validation of request origin or i…
-
High 7.1
OpenClaw < 2026.3.31 - Cross-Site Request Forgery via Missing Browser-Origin Validation in HTTP Operator Endpoints
OpenClaw before 2026.3.31 lacks browser-origin validation in HTTP operator endpoints when operating in trusted-proxy mode, allowing cross-site request forgery attacks. Attackers can exploit this by sending malicious requests from a browser in trusted-proxy de…
-
Critical 9.6
Hackage CSRF vulnerability
hackage-server lacked Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) protection across its endpoints. Scripts on foreign sites could trigger requests to hackage server, possibly abusing latent credentials to upload packages or perform other administrative actions. Some un…
-
High 8.1
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in GitLab
GitLab has remediated an issue in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 17.0 before 18.9.6, 18.10 before 18.10.4, and 18.11 before 18.11.1 that could have allowed an unauthenticated user to execute GraphQL mutations on behalf of authenticated users due to …
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress Avada theme < 7.13.2 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in ThemeFusion Avada allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Avada: from n/a before 7.13.2.
-
High —
engram: HTTP server CORS wildcard + auth-off-by-default enables CSRF graph exfiltration and persistent indirect prompt injection
### Summary The local HTTP server started by `engram server` (binding `127.0.0.1:7337` by default) was exposed to any browser origin with no authentication unless `ENGRAM_API_TOKEN` was explicitly set. Combined with `Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *` on every r…
-
Medium 4.3
DX Unanswered Comments <= 1.7 - Cross-Site Request Forgery via Settings Update
The DX Unanswered Comments plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.7. This is due to missing nonce validation on the plugin's settings form in the dxuc-unanswered-comments-admin-page.php file. T…
-
Medium 4.3
Google PageRank Display <= 1.4 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Settings Update via Settings Page
The Google PageRank Display plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to and including 1.4. This is due to missing nonce validation in the gpdisplay_option() function, which handles the plugin settings page. The settings …
-
Medium 4.3
Kcaptcha <= 1.0.1 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Settings Update
The Kcaptcha plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to and including 1.0.1. This is due to missing nonce validation in the plugin's settings page handler (admin/setting.php). The settings form does not include a wp…
-
Medium 6.1
Inquiry cart <= 3.4.2 - Cross-Site Request Forgery via Settings Form
The Inquiry Cart plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.4.2. This is due to missing nonce verification in the rd_ic_settings_page function when processing settings form submissions. This makes …
-
Medium 4.3
Call To Action Plugin <= 3.1.3 - Cross-Site Request Forgery via Settings Update
The Call To Action Plugin plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.1.3. This is due to missing nonce validation in the cbox_options_page() function which handles saving, creating, and deleting pl…
-
Medium 4.3
mCatFilter <= 0.5.2 - Cross-Site Request Forgery via compute_post() Function
The mCatFilter plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to and including 0.5.2. This is due to the complete absence of nonce verification and capability checks in the compute_post() function, which processes settings…
-
Medium 4.3
Fast & Fancy Filter – 3F <= 1.2.2 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Settings Modification via fff_save_settins AJAX Action
The Fast & Fancy Filter – 3F plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to and including 1.2.2. This is due to missing nonce verification in the saveFields() function, which handles the fff_save_settins AJAX action. This m…
-
Medium 4.3
TextP2P Texting Widget <= 1.7 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Settings Update
The TextP2P Texting Widget plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to and including 1.7. This is due to missing nonce validation in the imTextP2POptionPage() function which processes settings updates. The form at li…
-
Medium 4.3
Ni WooCommerce Order Export <= 3.1.6 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Settings Update via ni_order_export_action AJAX Action
The Ni WooCommerce Order Export plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to and including 3.1.6. This is due to missing nonce validation in the ni_order_export_action() AJAX handler function. The handler processes se…
-
Medium 6.1
WP Responsive Popup + Optin <= 1.4 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via 'wpo_image_url' Parameter
The WP Responsive Popup + Optin plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to and including 1.4. This is due to the settings form on the admin page (wpo_admin_page.php) lacking nonce generation (wp_nonce_field) and ver…
-
Medium 5.4
WWBN AVideo's missing CSRF protection in objects/commentDelete.json.php enables mass comment deletion against moderators and content creators
WWBN AVideo is an open source video platform. In versions 29.0 and prior, `objects/commentDelete.json.php` is a state-mutating JSON endpoint that deletes comments but performs no CSRF validation. It does not call `forbidIfIsUntrustedRequest()`, does not verif…
-
Medium 5.4
AVideo: Missing CSRF Protection on State-Changing JSON Endpoints Enables Forced Comment Creation, Vote Manipulation, and Category Asset Deletion
WWBN AVideo is an open source video platform. In versions 29.0 and prior, multiple AVideo JSON endpoints under `objects/` accept state-changing requests via `$_REQUEST`/`$_GET` and persist changes tied to the caller's session user, without any anti-CSRF token…