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
WP eCommerce <= 3.15.1 - Coupon Deletion via CSRF
The WP eCommerce WordPress plugin through 3.15.1 does not have CSRF check in place when deleting coupons, which could allow attackers to make a logged in admin remove them via a CSRF attack
-
Medium 4.6
Gokapi: CSRF in Login Endpoint
Gokapi is a self-hosted file sharing server with automatic expiration and encryption support. Prior to version 2.2.3, the login flow accepts credential-bearing requests without CSRF protection mechanisms tied to the browser session context. The handler parses…
-
High 8.1
Chamilo: CSRF Vulnerability in Project Deletion
Chamilo is a learning management system. Prior to version 1.11.34, a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability allows an attacker to delete projects inside a course without the victim’s consent. The issue arises because sensitive actions such as project…
-
High 7.1
OpenClaw < 2026.2.14 - OAuth State Validation Bypass in Manual Chutes Login Flow
OpenClaw versions prior to 2026.2.14 contain an oauth state validation bypass vulnerability in the manual Chutes login flow that allows attackers to bypass CSRF protection. An attacker can convince a user to paste attacker-controlled OAuth callback data, enab…
-
Medium 5.4
Mercurius: Incorrect Content-Type parsing can lead to CSRF attack
Mercurius is a GraphQL adapter for Fastify. Prior to version 16.4.0, a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability was identified. The issue arises from incorrect parsing of the Content-Type header in requests. Specifically, requests with Content-Type val…
-
Critical 9.3
RustDesk Flutter URI Handler Sets Permanent Password Without Privilege Check or User Confirmation
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in rustdesk-client RustDesk Client rustdesk-client on Windows, MacOS, Linux, iOS, Android (Flutter URI scheme handler, FFI bridge modules) allows Privilege Escalation. This vulnerability is associated with progr…
-
Low 2.3
Concrete CMS below 9.4.8 is vulnerable to CSRF by a Rogue Admin using the Anti-Spam Allowlist Group
Concrete CMS below version 9.4.8 is subject to CSRF by a Rogue Administrator using the Anti-Spam Allowlist Group Configuration via group_id parameter which can leads to a security bypass since changes are saved prior to checking the CSRF token. The Concrete C…
-
High 8.1
A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Nokia IMPACT through 19.11.2.10-20210118042150283 allows a remote …
-
Medium 4.3
SODOLA SL902-SWTGW124AS <= 200.1.20 Missing CSRF Protections
SODOLA SL902-SWTGW124AS firmware versions through 200.1.20 contain a cross-site request forgery vulnerability in its management interface that allows attackers to induce authenticated users into submitting forged requests. Attackers can craft malicious reques…
-
Low 3.1
Chia Blockchain send_transaction cross-site request forgery
A vulnerability was detected in Chia Blockchain 2.1.0. Impacted is an unknown function of the file /send_transaction. The manipulation results in cross-site request forgery. The attack may be performed from remote. The attack requires a high level of complexi…
-
Medium 4.3
Disable Admin Notices – Hide Dashboard Notifications <= 1.4.2 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Plugin Settings Update
The Disable Admin Notices – Hide Dashboard Notifications plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.4.2. This is due to missing nonce validation in the `showPageContent()` function. This makes it p…
-
Low 2.6
Talishar Vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
Talishar is a fan-made Flesh and Blood project. Prior to commit 6be3871a14c192d1fb8146cdbc76f29f27c1cf48, the Talishar application lacks Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) protections on critical state-changing endpoints, specifically within `SubmitChat.php` a…
-
High 8.3
Parse Dashboard Missing CSRF Protection on Agent Endpoint
Parse Dashboard is a standalone dashboard for managing Parse Server apps. In versions 7.3.0-alpha.42 through 9.0.0-alpha.7, the AI Agent API endpoint (`POST /apps/:appId/agent`) lacks CSRF protection. An attacker can craft a malicious page that, when visited …
-
Medium 6.9
Caddy vulnerable to cross-origin config application via local admin API /load (caddy)
Caddy is an extensible server platform that uses TLS by default. Prior to version 2.11.1, the local caddy admin API (default listen `127.0.0.1:2019`) exposes a state-changing `POST /load` endpoint that replaces the entire running configuration. When origin en…
-
Medium 4.3
Binardat 10G08-0800GSM Network Switch CSRF
Binardat 10G08-0800GSM network switch firmware version V300SP10260209 and prior lack CSRF protections for state-changing actions in the administrative interface. An attacker can trick an authenticated administrator into performing unauthorized configuration c…
-
Medium 4.3
Bludit <= 3.16.1 CSRF in Plugin and Theme Management Endpoints
Bludit version 3.16.1 contains a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the /admin/uninstall-plugin/ and /admin/install-theme/ endpoints. The application does not implement anti-CSRF tokens or other request origin validation mechanisms for these a…
-
High 7.3
Traccar Vulnerable to Authorization Code Theft via Open Redirect in OIDC Provider Endpoints
Versions of the Traccar open-source GPS tracking system up to and including 6.11.1 contain an issue in which authenticated users can steal OAuth 2.0 authorization codes by exploiting an open redirect vulnerability in two OIDC-related endpoints. The `redirect_…
-
Medium 5.1
Aruba HiSpeed Cache < 3.0.5 CSRF in Multiple Administrative AJAX Actions
Aruba HiSpeed Cache (aruba-hispeed-cache) WordPress plugin versions prior to 3.0.5 contain a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability affecting multiple administrative AJAX actions. The handlers for ahsc_reset_options, ahsc_debug_status, and ahsc_enabl…
-
Medium 4.3
Tenda F3 CSRF in Web Management Interface
Shenzhen Tenda F3 Wireless Router firmware V12.01.01.55_multi contains a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the web-based administrative interface. The interface does not implement anti-CSRF protections, allowing an attacker to induce an authe…
-
High 7.1
GetSimple CMS: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in File Upload Allows Arbitrary Uploads
GetSimple CMS is a content management system. All versions of GetSimple CMS do not implement CSRF protection on the administrative file upload endpoint. As a result, an attacker can craft a malicious web page that silently triggers a file upload request from …
-
Medium 4.3
OrientDB 3.0.17 Cross-Site Request Forgery
OrientDB 3.0.17 GA Community Edition contains cross-site request forgery vulnerabilities that allow attackers to perform unauthorized actions by crafting malicious requests to endpoints like /database/, /command/, and /document/. Attackers can create or delet…
-
Medium 5.9
Cross Site request forgery vulnerability discovered in OpenText WSM Management Server.
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in OpenText™ Web Site Management Server allows Cross Site Request Forgery. The vulnerability could make a user, with active session inside the product, click on a page that contains this malicious HTML triggerin…
-
High 7.1
OpenClaw affected by cross-site request forgery (CSRF) through loopback browser mutation endpoints
OpenClaw is a personal AI assistant. Prior to 2026.2.14, browser-facing localhost mutation routes accepted cross-origin browser requests without explicit Origin/Referer validation. Loopback binding reduces remote exposure but does not prevent browser-initiate…
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress Kenta Companion plugin <= 1.3.3 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in WP Moose Kenta Companion kenta-companion allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Kenta Companion: from n/a through <= 1.3.3.
-
Medium 5.4
WordPress RealPress plugin <= 1.1.0 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in ThimPress RealPress realpress allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects RealPress: from n/a through <= 1.1.0.
-
Medium 5.4
WordPress Popularis Extra plugin <= 1.2.10 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Themes4WP Popularis Extra popularis-extra allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Popularis Extra: from n/a through <= 1.2.10.
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress Revision Manager TMC plugin <= 2.8.22 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in themastercut Revision Manager TMC revision-manager-tmc allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Revision Manager TMC: from n/a through <= 2.8.22.
-
Medium 5.4
WordPress Coachify theme <= 1.1.5 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in wpcoachify Coachify coachify allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Coachify: from n/a through <= 1.1.5.
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress Zita Elementor Site Library plugin <= 1.6.6 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in wpzita Zita Elementor Site Library zita-site-library allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Zita Elementor Site Library: from n/a through <= 1.6.6.
-
Medium 5.4
WordPress PublishPress Revisions plugin <= 3.7.22 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in PublishPress PublishPress Revisions revisionary allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects PublishPress Revisions: from n/a through <= 3.7.22.
-
Medium 4.3
Whatsiplus Scheduled Notification for Woocommerce <= 1.0.1 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to 'wsnfw_save_users_settings' AJAX Action
The Whatsiplus Scheduled Notification for Woocommerce 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 on the 'wsnfw_save_users_settings' AJAX action. This ma…
-
Medium 4.3
Remove Post Type Slug <= 1.0.2 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Settings Update
The Remove Post Type Slug plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.2. This is due to incorrect nonce validation logic that uses OR (||) instead of AND (&&), causing the validation to fail when …
-
Medium 4.3
Page Title, Description & Open Graph Updater <= 1.02 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Arbitrary Page Title Modification
The Page Title, Description & Open Graph Updater plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.02. This is due to missing nonce validation on multiple AJAX actions including dieno_update_page_title. T…
-
Medium 4.3
Country Blocker for AdSense <= 1.0 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Settings Update
The Country Blocker for AdSense plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0. This is due to missing nonce validation on the CBFA_guardar_cbfa() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated…
-
High 8.8
NewsBlogger <= 0.2.5.6 - 0.2.5.9 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Arbitrary Plugin Installation
The NewsBlogger theme for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions 0.2.5.6 to 0.2.5.9. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the newsblogger_install_and_activate_plugin() function. This makes it possible for unauthen…
-
Medium 4.3
Mailchimp List Subscribe Form <= 2.0.0 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Mailchimp List Change
The Mailchimp List Subscribe Form plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.0.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the mailchimp_sf_change_list_if_necessary() function. This …
-
High 8.2
SD.NET RIM 4.7.3c - 'idtyp' SQL Injection
SD.NET RIM versions before 4.7.3c contain a SQL injection vulnerability that allows attackers to inject malicious SQL statements through POST parameters 'idtyp' and 'idgremium'. Attackers can exploit this vulnerability by crafting specially formed POST reques…
-
Medium 4.3
newbee-ltd newbee-mall Multiple Endpoints cross-site request forgery
A vulnerability was found in newbee-ltd newbee-mall up to a069069b07027613bf0e7f571736be86f431faee. Affected is an unknown function of the component Multiple Endpoints. Performing a manipulation results in cross-site request forgery. Remote exploitation of th…
-
Medium 4.3
Dam Spam <= 1.0.8 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Arbitrary Pending Comment Deletion
The Dam Spam plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.8. This is due to missing nonce verification on the pending comment deletion action in the cleanup page. This makes it possible for unauthe…
-
Medium 4.3
Keybase.io Verification <= 1.4.5 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Settings Update
The Keybase.io Verification plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.4.5. This is due to missing nonce validation when updating plugin settings. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attacke…