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
Mollie Forms <= 2.6.13 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Arbitrary Post Duplication
The Mollie Forms plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.6.13. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the duplicateForm() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated at…
-
Medium 5.4
idccms V1.35 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via /admin/vpsCompany_deal.php?mudi=add&nohr…
-
High 8.8
idccms v1.35 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via /admin/vpsCompany_deal.php?mudi=rev&nohr…
-
Medium 5.4
idccms V1.35 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via admin/vpsCompany_deal.php?mudi=del
-
Medium 5.4
idccms V1.35 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via the component admin/vpsClass_deal.php?mu…
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress Integration for Constant Contact and Contact Form 7, WPForms, Elementor, Ninja Forms plugin <= 1.1.5 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in CRM Perks. Integration for Contact Form 7 and Constant Contact.This issue affects Integration for Contact Form 7 and Constant Contact: from n/a through 1.1.5.
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress ActiveDEMAND plugin <= 0.2.43 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in JumpDEMAND Inc. ActiveDEMAND.This issue affects ActiveDEMAND: from n/a through 0.2.43.
-
Medium 4.3
Shield Security – Smart Bot Blocking & Intrusion Prevention Security <= 19.1.13 - Cross-Site Request Forgery
The Shield Security – Smart Bot Blocking & Intrusion Prevention Security plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 19.1.13. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the exec function.…
-
Medium 4.3
WordPress Uploadcare File Uploader and Adaptive Delivery plugin <= 3.0.11 - Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Uploadcare Uploadcare File Uploader and Adaptive Delivery (beta) uploadcare.This issue affects Uploadcare File Uploader and Adaptive Delivery (beta): from n/a through 3.0.11.
-
Low 3.5
moodle: CSRF risk in analytics management of models
Actions in the admin management of analytics models did not include the necessary token to prevent a CSRF risk.
-
High 8.8
moodle: logout CSRF in admin/tool/mfa/auth.php
The logout option within MFA did not include the necessary token to avoid the risk of users inadvertently being logged out via CSRF.
-
High 8.4
moodle: CSRF risk in admin preset tool management of presets
Actions in the admin preset tool did not include the necessary token to prevent a CSRF risk.
-
Medium 4.3
Comparison Slider <= 1.0.5 - Cross-Site Request Forgery
The Comparison Slider plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.5. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on several functions hooked to AJAX actions. This makes it possible for un…
-
Medium 4.3
WP To Do <= 1.3.0 - Cross-Site Request Forgery via wptodo_settings
The WP To Do plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.3.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the wptodo_settings() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attac…
-
Medium 4.3
WP To Do <= 1.3.0 - Cross-Site Request Forgery via wptodo_manage()
The WP To Do plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.3.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the wptodo_manage() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attacke…
-
Medium 4.3
WP To Do <= 1.3.0 - Cross-Site Request Forgery via wptodo_addcomment
The WP To Do plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.3.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the wptodo_addcomment function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attac…
-
Medium 6.5
AffiEasy <= 1.1.6 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Various Actions
The AffiEasy plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.1.6. This is due to plugin improperly releasing the tagged and patched version of the plugin - the vulnerable version is used as the core fil…
-
Medium 6.5
Sylius Resource Bundle Cross-Site Request Forgery vulnerability
Sylius 1.0.0 to 1.0.16, 1.1.0 to 1.1.8, 1.2.0 to 1.2.1 versions of AdminBundle and ResourceBundle are affected by this security issue. This issue has been fixed in Sylius 1.0.17, 1.1.9 and 1.2.2. Development branch for 1.3 release has also been fixed. ### Des…
-
High 7.3
Data Poisoning in EmbedAI
The EmbedAI application is susceptible to security issues that enable Data Poisoning attacks. This weakness could result in the application becoming compromised, leading to unauthorized entries or data poisoning attacks, which are delivered by a CSRF vulnerab…
-
Medium 5.4
Cross Site Request Forgery vulnerability in iManager
Cross-Site Request Forgery vulnerability has been discovered in OpenText™ iManager 3.2.6.0200. This could lead to sensitive information disclosure.
-
Medium 4.3
SourceCodester Simple Online Bidding System HTTP POST Request save_product cross-site request forgery
A vulnerability classified as problematic was found in SourceCodester Simple Online Bidding System 1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function save_product of the file /admin/index.php?page=manage_product of the component HTTP POST Request Handler. Th…
-
High 7.3
silverstripe/graphql Cross-Site Request Forgery vulnerability
The GraphQL controller lacked any CSRF protection, meaning authenticated users could be forced or tricked into visiting a URL that would send a GET request to the affected web server that could mutate or destroy data without the user knowing.
-
Medium 6.4
Business Card <= 1.0.0 - Arbitrary Card Deletion via CSRF
The Business Card WordPress plugin through 1.0.0 does not have CSRF checks in some places, which could allow attackers to make logged in users perform unwanted actions such as deleting cards via CSRF attacks
-
Medium 5.7
Post actions can run playbook checklist task commands
Mattermost versions 9.5.x <= 9.5.3, 9.6.x <= 9.6.1 and 8.1.x <= 8.1.12 fail to perform proper input validation on post actions which allows an attacker to run a playbook checklist task command as another user via creating and sharing a deceptive post action t…
-
Medium 4.3
WP-ViperGB <= 1.6.1 - Cross-Site Request Forgery
The WP-ViperGB plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.6.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation when saving plugin settings. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers…
-
Medium 5.4
Silverstripe Missing CSRF protection in login form
LoginForm calls disableSecurityToken(), which causes a "shared host domain" vulnerability: http://stackoverflow.com/a/15350123.
-
Medium 4.3
Silverstripe CSRF vulnerability in GridFieldAddExistingAutocompleter
GridField does not have sufficient CSRF protection, meaning that in some cases users with CMS access can be tricked into posting unspecified data into the CMS from external websites. Amongst other default CMS interfaces, GridField is used for management of gr…
-
Medium 5.3
Silverstripe Forum Module CSRF Vulnerability
A number of form actions in the Forum module are directly accessible. A malicious user (e.g. spammer) can use GET requests to create Members and post to forums, bypassing CSRF and anti-spam measures. Additionally, a forum moderator could be tricked into click…
-
Medium 5.4
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in GitLab
A CSRF vulnerability exists within GitLab CE/EE from versions 13.11 before 16.10.6, from 16.11 before 16.11.3, from 17.0 before 17.0.1. By leveraging this vulnerability, an attacker could exfiltrate anti-CSRF tokens via the Kubernetes Agent Server (KAS).
-
Medium 6.4
A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability was discovered in OpenKM Community Edition on or before version 6.3.1…
-
Medium 5.4
idccms v1.35 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via the component /admin/ca_deal.php?mudi=ad…
-
Medium 4.3
idccms v1.35 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via the component /admin/ca_deal.php?mudi=de…
-
High 8.8
idccms v1.35 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via the component /admin/infoMove_deal.php?m…
-
High 8.8
idccms v1.35 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via the component /admin/ca_deal.php?mudi=re…
-
Medium 5.5
idccms v1.35 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via the component /admin/vpsApi_deal.php?mud…
-
Medium 6.3
idccms v1.35 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via the component /admin/share_switch.php?mu…
-
High 8.8
idccms v1.35 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via the component /admin/vpsSys_deal.php?mud…
-
Medium 5.4
idccms v1.35 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via the component /admin/infoWeb_deal.php?mu…
-
High 8.3
idccms v1.35 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via the component /admin/infoMove_deal.php?m…
-
High 8.8
idccms v1.35 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via the component /admin/infoMove_deal.php?m…