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
15003 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-GV4J-7G97-XGMQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:48 – Updated: 2024-04-04 00:58HP Color LaserJet Pro M280-M281 Multifunction Printer series (before v. 20190419), HP LaserJet Pro MFP M28-M31 Printer series (before v. 20190426) may have an embedded web server that is potentially vulnerable to Cross-site Request Forgery.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-6325"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-06-17T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "HP Color LaserJet Pro M280-M281 Multifunction Printer series (before v. 20190419), HP LaserJet Pro MFP M28-M31 Printer series (before v. 20190426) may have an embedded web server that is potentially vulnerable to Cross-site Request Forgery.",
"id": "GHSA-gv4j-7g97-xgmq",
"modified": "2024-04-04T00:58:33Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:48:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-6325"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://support.hp.com/us-en/document/c06356322"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-GV5C-QWVR-2QQ7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-03-27 12:30 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:34Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in CRM Perks Integration for Google Sheets and Contact Form 7, WPForms, Elementor, Ninja Forms allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects Integration for Google Sheets and Contact Form 7, WPForms, Elementor, Ninja Forms: from n/a through 1.0.9.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-30863"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-03-27T11:15:47Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in CRM Perks Integration for Google Sheets and Contact Form 7, WPForms, Elementor, Ninja Forms allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects Integration for Google Sheets and Contact Form 7, WPForms, Elementor, Ninja Forms: from n/a through 1.0.9.",
"id": "GHSA-gv5c-qwvr-2qq7",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:34:08Z",
"published": "2025-03-27T12:30:39Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-30863"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/integration-for-contact-form-7-and-google-sheets/vulnerability/wordpress-integration-for-google-sheets-and-contact-form-7-wpforms-elementor-ninja-forms-plugin-1-0-9-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"
}
]
}
GHSA-GV5R-9GXR-V74W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-05-13 18:30 – Updated: 2026-02-26 21:59An issue was discovered in post.php in bootstrap-multiselect (aka Bootstrap Multiselect) 1.1.2. A PHP script in the source code echoes arbitrary POST data. If a developer adopts this structure wholesale in a live application, it could create a Reflective Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exploitable through Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF).
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "bootstrap-multiselect"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.0.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-47204"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352",
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-05-15T14:51:25Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-05-13T16:15:31Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in post.php in bootstrap-multiselect (aka Bootstrap Multiselect) 1.1.2. A PHP script in the source code echoes arbitrary POST data. If a developer adopts this structure wholesale in a live application, it could create a Reflective Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exploitable through Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF).",
"id": "GHSA-gv5r-9gxr-v74w",
"modified": "2026-02-26T21:59:01Z",
"published": "2025-05-13T18:30:53Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-47204"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/davidstutz/bootstrap-multiselect/issues/1286"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/davidstutz/bootstrap-multiselect/pull/1287"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/davidstutz/bootstrap-multiselect/commit/7da45ded9c82837a8eae9cb9dd3bd32a3dd1dc45"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/projectdiscovery/nuclei-templates/commit/11e1a6c11d3954f44acfb0274b6dad4bd8045103"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/davidstutz/bootstrap-multiselect"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/davidstutz/bootstrap-multiselect/releases"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Bootstrap Multiselect Vulnerable to CSRF and Reflective XSS via Arbitrary POST Data"
}
GHSA-GV64-H8VQ-2WJH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 04:07 – Updated: 2022-05-17 04:07Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in form2WlanSetup.cgi on Philippine Long Distance Telephone (PLDT) SpeedSurf 504AN devices with firmware GAN9.8U26-4-TX-R6B018-PH.EN and Kasda KW58293 devices allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that perform setup operations, as demonstrated by modifying network settings.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2015-5991"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2015-09-21T10:59:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in form2WlanSetup.cgi on Philippine Long Distance Telephone (PLDT) SpeedSurf 504AN devices with firmware GAN9.8U26-4-TX-R6B018-PH.EN and Kasda KW58293 devices allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that perform setup operations, as demonstrated by modifying network settings.",
"id": "GHSA-gv64-h8vq-2wjh",
"modified": "2022-05-17T04:07:20Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T04:07:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2015-5991"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/525276"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-GV7G-X59X-WF8F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-04-07 19:23 – Updated: 2023-04-14 20:30Summary
The SvelteKit framework offers developers an option to create simple REST APIs. This is done by defining a +server.js file, containing endpoint handlers for different HTTP methods.
SvelteKit provides out-of-the-box cross-site request forgery (CSRF) protection to its users. The protection is implemented at kit/src/runtime/server/respond.js. While the implementation does a sufficient job of mitigating common CSRF attacks, the protection can be bypassed by simply specifying an upper-cased Content-Type header value. The browser will not send uppercase characters on form submission, but this check does not block all expected cross-site requests: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CORS#simple_requests
Details
The CSRF protection is implemented using the code shown below.
const forbidden =
is_form_content_type(request) &&
(request.method === 'POST' ||
request.method === 'PUT' ||
request.method === 'PATCH' ||
request.method === 'DELETE') &&
request.headers.get('origin') !== url.origin;
if (forbidden) {
const csrf_error = error(403, `Cross-site ${request.method} form submissions are forbidden`);
if (request.headers.get('accept') === 'application/json') {
return json(csrf_error.body, { status: csrf_error.status });
}
return text(csrf_error.body.message, { status: csrf_error.status });
}
If the incoming request specifies a POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE method, the protection will compare the server’s origin with the value of the HTTP Origin header. A mismatch between these values signals that a potential attack has been detected. The final check is performed on the request’s Content-Type header whether the value is either application/x-www-form-urlencoded, multipart/form-data or text/plain. If all the previous checks pass, the request will be rejected with an 403 error response.
However, is_form_content_type, which is responsible for checking the value of the Content-Type header, is not sufficient to mitigate all possible variations of this type of attack. Since this function is checking Content-Type with lower-cased values, and the browser accepts upper-cased Content-Type header to be sent, a CSRF attack performed with the Content-Type header that contains an upper-cased character (e.g., text/plaiN) can circumvent the protection and the request will be processed by the endpoint handler.
Impact
If abused, this issue will allow malicious requests to be submitted from third-party domains, which can allow execution of operations within the context of the victim's session, and in extreme scenarios can lead to unauthorized access to users’ accounts. This may lead to all POST operations requiring authentication being allowed in the following cases:
1. If the target site sets SameSite=None on its auth cookie and the user visits a malicious site in a Chromium-based browser
2. If the target site doesn't set the SameSite attribute explicitly and the user visits a malicious site with Firefox/Safari with tracking protections turned off.
3. If the user is visiting a malicious site with a very outdated browser.
Remediations
It is preferred to update to SvelteKit 1.15.2. It is also recommended to explicitly set SameSite to a value other than None on authentication cookies especially if the upgrade cannot be done in a timely manner.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@sveltejs/kit"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.15.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-29008"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352",
"CWE-918"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-04-07T19:23:31Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-04-06T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\nThe SvelteKit framework offers developers an option to create simple REST APIs. This is done by defining a `+server.js` file, containing endpoint handlers for different HTTP methods.\n\nSvelteKit provides out-of-the-box cross-site request forgery (CSRF) protection to its users. The protection is implemented at `kit/src/runtime/server/respond.js`. While the implementation does a sufficient job of mitigating common CSRF attacks, the protection can be bypassed by simply specifying an upper-cased `Content-Type` header value. The browser will not send uppercase characters on form submission, but this check does not block all expected cross-site requests: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CORS#simple_requests\n\n### Details\nThe CSRF protection is implemented using the code shown below.\n\n``` javascript\n\t\tconst forbidden =\n\t\t\tis_form_content_type(request) \u0026\u0026\n\t\t\t(request.method === \u0027POST\u0027 ||\n\t\t\t\trequest.method === \u0027PUT\u0027 ||\n\t\t\t\trequest.method === \u0027PATCH\u0027 ||\n\t\t\t\trequest.method === \u0027DELETE\u0027) \u0026\u0026\n\t\t\trequest.headers.get(\u0027origin\u0027) !== url.origin;\n\n\t\tif (forbidden) {\n\t\t\tconst csrf_error = error(403, `Cross-site ${request.method} form submissions are forbidden`);\n\t\t\tif (request.headers.get(\u0027accept\u0027) === \u0027application/json\u0027) {\n\t\t\t\treturn json(csrf_error.body, { status: csrf_error.status });\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\treturn text(csrf_error.body.message, { status: csrf_error.status });\n\t\t}\n```\n\nIf the incoming request specifies a POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE method, the protection will compare the server\u2019s origin with the value of the HTTP Origin header. A mismatch between these values signals that a potential attack has been detected. The final check is performed on the request\u2019s `Content-Type` header whether the value is either `application/x-www-form-urlencoded`, `multipart/form-data` or `text/plain`. If all the previous checks pass, the request will be rejected with an 403 error response.\nHowever, `is_form_content_type`, which is responsible for checking the value of the `Content-Type` header, is not sufficient to mitigate all possible variations of this type of attack. Since this function is checking `Content-Type` with lower-cased values, and the browser accepts upper-cased `Content-Type` header to be sent, a CSRF attack performed with the `Content-Type` header that contains an upper-cased character (e.g., `text/plaiN`) can circumvent the protection and the request will be processed by the endpoint handler.\n\u003c!--\n### PoC\n1. Set up the SvelteKit with `POST /api/test` endpoint.\n2. Replace `REPLACE_DOMAIN` in the following HTML.\n``` html\n\u003cscript\u003e\n(async() =\u003e {\n\tawait fetch(\"https://REPLACE_DOMAIN/api/test\", {method: \"POST\", headers:{\"Content-Type\":\"text/plaiN\"}, body: \"hello=world\"});\n})();\n\u003c/script\u003e\n```\n3. Confirm that a POST request is processed by the server.\n--\u003e\n### Impact\nIf abused, this issue will allow malicious requests to be submitted from third-party domains, which can allow execution of operations within the context of the victim\u0027s session, and in extreme scenarios can lead to unauthorized access to users\u2019 accounts. This may lead to all POST operations requiring authentication being allowed in the following cases:\n1. If the target site sets `SameSite=None` on its auth cookie and the user visits a malicious site in a Chromium-based browser\n2. If the target site doesn\u0027t set the `SameSite` attribute explicitly and the user visits a malicious site with Firefox/Safari with tracking protections turned off.\n3. If the user is visiting a malicious site with a very outdated browser.\n\n### Remediations\nIt is preferred to update to SvelteKit 1.15.2. It is also recommended to explicitly set `SameSite` to a value other than `None` on authentication cookies especially if the upgrade cannot be done in a timely manner.",
"id": "GHSA-gv7g-x59x-wf8f",
"modified": "2023-04-14T20:30:47Z",
"published": "2023-04-07T19:23:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sveltejs/kit/security/advisories/GHSA-gv7g-x59x-wf8f"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-29008"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sveltejs/kit/commit/ba436c6685e751d968a960fbda65f24cf7a82e9f"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/sveltejs/kit"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "SvelteKit framework has Insufficient CSRF protection for CORS requests"
}
GHSA-GV7V-99QM-GW7Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-01 23:28 – Updated: 2022-05-01 23:28Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in admin.php in eTicket 1.5.5.2 allows remote attackers to change the administrative password and possibly perform other administrative tasks. NOTE: either the old password must be known, or the attacker must leverage a separate SQL injection vulnerability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2008-0266"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2008-01-15T20:00:00Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in admin.php in eTicket 1.5.5.2 allows remote attackers to change the administrative password and possibly perform other administrative tasks. NOTE: either the old password must be known, or the attacker must leverage a separate SQL injection vulnerability.",
"id": "GHSA-gv7v-99qm-gw7q",
"modified": "2022-05-01T23:28:47Z",
"published": "2022-05-01T23:28:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2008-0266"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/39490"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/28331"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://securityreason.com/securityalert/3542"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/485835/100/0/threaded"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/27173"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-GV89-H5G3-2XC2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-07-17 15:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 06:09The 3DPrint WordPress plugin before 3.5.6.9 does not protect against CSRF attacks in the modified version of Tiny File Manager included with the plugin, allowing an attacker to craft a malicious request that will create an archive of any files or directories on the target server by tricking a logged in admin into submitting a form. Furthermore the created archive has a predictable location and name, allowing the attacker to download the file if they know the time at which the form was submitted, making it possible to leak sensitive files like the WordPress configuration containing database credentials and secrets.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-4023"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-07-17T14:15:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The 3DPrint WordPress plugin before 3.5.6.9 does not protect against CSRF attacks in the modified version of Tiny File Manager included with the plugin, allowing an attacker to craft a malicious request that will create an archive of any files or directories on the target server by tricking a logged in admin into submitting a form. Furthermore the created archive has a predictable location and name, allowing the attacker to download the file if they know the time at which the form was submitted, making it possible to leak sensitive files like the WordPress configuration containing database credentials and secrets.",
"id": "GHSA-gv89-h5g3-2xc2",
"modified": "2024-04-04T06:09:40Z",
"published": "2023-07-17T15:30:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-4023"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jetpack.com/blog/vulnerabilities-found-in-the-3dprint-premium-plugin"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/859c6e7e-2381-4d93-a526-2000b4fb8fee"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-GV93-C8VM-3G8R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:47 – Updated: 2025-04-20 03:37In WordPress before 4.7.5, there is improper handling of post meta data values in the XML-RPC API.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-9062"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352",
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-05-18T14:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "In WordPress before 4.7.5, there is improper handling of post meta data values in the XML-RPC API.",
"id": "GHSA-gv93-c8vm-3g8r",
"modified": "2025-04-20T03:37:51Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:47:48Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-9062"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/commit/3d95e3ae816f4d7c638f40d3e936a4be19724381"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://codex.wordpress.org/Version_4.7.5"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wordpress.org/news/2017/05/wordpress-4-7-5"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpvulndb.com/vulnerabilities/8816"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.debian.org/security/2017/dsa-3870"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/98509"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1038520"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-GVC8-8JHG-7556
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-28 00:32 – Updated: 2025-02-06 18:31Cross Site Request Forgery vulnerability in LifestyleStore v.1.0 allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary cod and obtain sensitive information.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-57373"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-27T23:15:09Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Cross Site Request Forgery vulnerability in LifestyleStore v.1.0 allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary cod and obtain sensitive information.",
"id": "GHSA-gvc8-8jhg-7556",
"modified": "2025-02-06T18:31:04Z",
"published": "2025-01-28T00:32:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-57373"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cypherdavy/CVE-2024-57373"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sajalagrawal/LifestyleStore"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-GVCF-H5V7-8HXX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 04:18 – Updated: 2022-05-17 04:18Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in the gSlideShow plugin 0.1 and earlier for WordPress allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that conduct cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks via the (1) rss, (2) display_time or (3) transistion_time parameter in the gslideshow.php page to wp-admin/options-general.php.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2014-9391"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2014-12-31T21:59:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in the gSlideShow plugin 0.1 and earlier for WordPress allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that conduct cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks via the (1) rss, (2) display_time or (3) transistion_time parameter in the gslideshow.php page to wp-admin/options-general.php.",
"id": "GHSA-gvcf-h5v7-8hxx",
"modified": "2022-05-17T04:18:15Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T04:18:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2014-9391"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/129637/WordPress-gSlideShow-0.1-CSRF-XSS.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
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.