Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-352

Weakness Allowed

Cross-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
ChildOf: CWE-345 · View CWE-1000
ChildOf: CWE-345 · View CWE-1003
Requires: CWE-346 · View CWE-1000
Requires: CWE-441 · View CWE-1000
Requires: CWE-642 · View CWE-1000
Requires: CWE-613 · View CWE-1000
Modes of introduction
Architecture and Design

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
Submission: PLOVER · 2006-07-19 · CWE Draft 3
Contribution: Abhi Balakrishnan · 2024-02-29 · CWE 4.17

Contributed usability diagram concepts used by the CWE team.

Modification: Eric Dalci · Cigital · 2008-07-01 · CWE 1.0

updated Time_of_Introduction

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2008-09-08 · CWE 1.0

updated Alternate_Terms, Description, Relationships, Other_Notes, Relationship_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2009-01-12 · CWE 1.2

updated Applicable_Platforms, Description, Likelihood_of_Exploit, Observed_Examples, Other_Notes, Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationship_Notes, Relationships, Research_Gaps, Theoretical_Notes

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2009-03-10 · CWE 1.3

updated Potential_Mitigations

Modification: Tom Stracener · 2009-05-20 · CWE 1.4

Added demonstrative example for profile.

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2009-05-27 · CWE 1.4

updated Demonstrative_Examples, Related_Attack_Patterns

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2009-12-28 · CWE 1.7

updated Common_Consequences, Demonstrative_Examples, Detection_Factors, Likelihood_of_Exploit, Observed_Examples, Potential_Mitigations, Time_of_Introduction

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2010-02-16 · CWE 1.8

updated Applicable_Platforms, Detection_Factors, References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2010-06-21 · CWE 1.9

updated Common_Consequences, Detection_Factors, Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2010-09-27 · CWE 1.10

updated Potential_Mitigations

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2011-03-29 · CWE 1.12

updated Description

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2011-06-01 · CWE 1.13

updated Common_Consequences

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2011-06-27 · CWE 2.0

updated Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2011-09-13 · CWE 2.1

updated Potential_Mitigations, References

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2012-05-11 · CWE 2.2

updated Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2012-10-30 · CWE 2.3

updated Potential_Mitigations

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2013-02-21 · CWE 2.4

updated Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2013-07-17 · CWE 2.5

updated References, Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2014-07-30 · CWE 2.8

updated Detection_Factors

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2015-12-07 · CWE 2.9

updated Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2017-11-08 · CWE 3.0

updated Applicable_Platforms, Likelihood_of_Exploit, Modes_of_Introduction, References, Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2018-03-27 · CWE 3.1

updated References, Relationship_Notes, Research_Gaps

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2019-09-19 · CWE 3.4

updated Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2020-02-24 · CWE 4.0

updated Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2020-06-25 · CWE 4.1

updated Relationships, Theoretical_Notes

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2020-08-20 · CWE 4.2

updated Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2021-07-20 · CWE 4.5

updated Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2021-10-28 · CWE 4.6

updated Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2022-06-28 · CWE 4.8

updated Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2023-04-27 · CWE 4.11

updated References, Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2023-06-29 · CWE 4.12

updated Mapping_Notes, Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2024-11-19 · CWE 4.16

updated Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2025-04-03 · CWE 4.17

updated Alternate_Terms, Common_Consequences, Description, Diagram

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2025-09-09 · CWE 4.18

updated Detection_Factors, Potential_Mitigations, References

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2025-12-11 · CWE 4.19

updated Applicable_Platforms, Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2026-10-28 · CWE 5.0

updated Applicable_Platforms, Name, References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings

15004 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.

GHSA-2MV4-PXP2-CP34

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-11-30 15:30 – Updated: 2026-04-28 21:33
VLAI
Details

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Andrea Landonio Taxonomy filter allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Taxonomy filter: from n/a through 2.2.9.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2023-48282"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-352"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2023-11-30T13:15:08Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Andrea Landonio Taxonomy filter allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Taxonomy filter: from n/a through 2.2.9.",
  "id": "GHSA-2mv4-pxp2-cp34",
  "modified": "2026-04-28T21:33:12Z",
  "published": "2023-11-30T15:30:23Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-48282"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/taxonomy-filter/wordpress-taxonomy-filter-plugin-2-2-9-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:L",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-2MV5-XFC5-J7J6

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-02-13 15:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:33
VLAI
Details

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in pa1 WP Html Page Sitemap allows Stored XSS. This issue affects WP Html Page Sitemap: from n/a through 2.2.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-26549"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-352"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-02-13T14:16:20Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in pa1 WP Html Page Sitemap allows Stored XSS. This issue affects WP Html Page Sitemap: from n/a through 2.2.",
  "id": "GHSA-2mv5-xfc5-j7j6",
  "modified": "2026-04-01T18:33:37Z",
  "published": "2025-02-13T15:31:26Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-26549"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/wp-html-page-sitemap/vulnerability/wordpress-wp-html-page-sitemap-plugin-2-2-csrf-to-stored-cross-site-scripting?_s_id=cve"
    }
  ],
  "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:L",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-2MWJ-JF28-G57F

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 02:14 – Updated: 2025-04-20 03:38
VLAI
Details

CSRF exists on Peplink Balance 305, 380, 580, 710, 1350, and 2500 devices with firmware before fw-b305hw2_380hw6_580hw2_710hw3_1350hw2_2500-7.0.1-build2093. The CGI scripts in the administrative interface are affected. This allows an attacker to execute commands, if a logged in user visits a malicious website. This can for example be used to change the credentials of the administrative webinterface.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2017-8836"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-352"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2017-06-05T14:29:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "CSRF exists on Peplink Balance 305, 380, 580, 710, 1350, and 2500 devices with firmware before fw-b305hw2_380hw6_580hw2_710hw3_1350hw2_2500-7.0.1-build2093. The CGI scripts in the administrative interface are affected. This allows an attacker to execute commands, if a logged in user visits a malicious website. This can for example be used to change the credentials of the administrative webinterface.",
  "id": "GHSA-2mwj-jf28-g57f",
  "modified": "2025-04-20T03:38:30Z",
  "published": "2022-05-17T02:14:17Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-8836"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/42130"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.x41-dsec.de/lab/advisories/x41-2017-005-peplink"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://seclists.org/bugtraq/2017/Jun/1"
    }
  ],
  "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-2P25-VJP8-GCMP

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-01 15:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:34
VLAI
Details

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Preliot Cache control by Cacholong allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects Cache control by Cacholong: from n/a through 5.4.1.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-31763"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-352"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-04-01T15:16:13Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Preliot Cache control by Cacholong allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects Cache control by Cacholong: from n/a through 5.4.1.",
  "id": "GHSA-2p25-vjp8-gcmp",
  "modified": "2026-04-01T18:34:19Z",
  "published": "2025-04-01T15:31:38Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-31763"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/cache-control-by-cacholong/vulnerability/wordpress-cache-control-by-cacholong-plugin-5-4-1-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-2P2Q-M5G6-RGHX

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-10-04 12:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 08:15
VLAI
Details

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Jeff Sherk Update Theme and Plugins from Zip File plugin <= 2.0.0 versions.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2023-25489"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-352"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2023-10-04T11:15:09Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Jeff Sherk Update Theme and Plugins from Zip File plugin \u003c=\u00a02.0.0 versions.",
  "id": "GHSA-2p2q-m5g6-rghx",
  "modified": "2024-04-04T08:15:56Z",
  "published": "2023-10-04T12:30:14Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-25489"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/update-theme-and-plugins-from-zip-file/wordpress-update-theme-and-plugins-from-zip-file-plugin-2-0-0-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-2P2X-WCRM-MWM9

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-02 12:31 – Updated: 2026-07-02 12:31
VLAI
Details

Unauthenticated Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in Permalink Manager for WooCommerce <= 1.0.8.2 versions.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-57758"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-352"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-07-02T12:17:41Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Unauthenticated Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in Permalink Manager for WooCommerce \u003c= 1.0.8.2 versions.",
  "id": "GHSA-2p2x-wcrm-mwm9",
  "modified": "2026-07-02T12:31:02Z",
  "published": "2026-07-02T12:31:02Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-57758"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/permalink-manager-for-woocommerce/vulnerability/wordpress-permalink-manager-for-woocommerce-plugin-1-0-8-2-csrf-to-stored-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
    }
  ],
  "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:L",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-2P3C-P3QW-69R4

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-10-12 14:15 – Updated: 2023-07-31 20:39
VLAI
Summary
The graphql-upload library included in Apollo Server 2 is vulnerable to CSRF mutations
Details

Impact

The graphql-upload npm package can execute GraphQL operations contained in content-type: multipart/form-data POST requests. Because they are POST requests, they can contain GraphQL mutations. Because they use content-type: multipart/form-data, they can be "simple requests" which are not preflighted by browsers.

If your GraphQL server uses graphql-upload and uses SameSite=None cookies for authentication, then JS on any origin can cause browsers to send cookie-authenticated mutations to your GraphQL server, which will be executed without checking your CORS policy first. (The attack won't be able to see the response to the mutation if your CORS policy is set up properly, but the side effects of the mutation will still happen.)

Additionally, if your GraphQL server uses graphql-upload and relies on network properties for security (whether by explicitly looking at the client's IP address or by only being available on a private network), then JS on any origin can cause browsers (which may be on a private network or have an allowed IP address) to send mutations to your GraphQL server, which will be executed without checking your CORS policy first. (This attack does not require your server to use cookies. It is in some cases prevented by some browsers such as Chrome.)

Apollo Server 2 bundled graphql-upload and enabled it by default, so by default, Apollo Server 2 servers are vulnerable to these CSRF attacks. (Apollo Server 1 did not bundle graphql-upload. Apollo Server 3 no longer bundles graphql-upload, although AS3's docs do document how to manually integrate with graphql-upload.) It is enabled even if your server makes no use of the upload functionality.

If you are running Apollo Server 2 (older than v2.25.4) and do not specify uploads: false to new ApolloServer, then you are vulnerable to this CSRF mutation attack.

We recently introduced an opt-in CSRF prevention feature in Apollo Server 3.7. This feature successfully protects against CSRF even if you have manually integrated your AS3.7 server with graphql-upload. However, this feature is not available for Apollo Server 2.

Patches

If you are using Apollo Server 2 and do not actually use uploads in your schema (ie, the Upload scalar is not used as the argument to any field or in any input object definition, and you do not specify uploads to new ApolloServer), then upgrading to Apollo Server 2.25.4 will automatically disable graphql-upload in your server. This will fix the CSRF mutation vulnerability.

Upgrading to v2.25.4 does still leave your server vulnerable to non-mutation CSRF attacks such as timing attacks against query operations. To protect yourself against these potentially lower impact CSRF attack, we encourage upgrading to Apollo Server v3.7 and enabling CSRF prevention. See the Apollo Server 3 migration guide and the CSRF prevention docs for details.

If you are actively using the uploads feature with Apollo Server 2, then upgrading to v2.25.4 will not disable the feature and you will still be vulnerable. You should instead upgrade to v3.7 and enable the CSRF prevention feature.

If you are manually integrating the graphql-upload package with any version of Apollo Server (or any Node GraphQL server) and need to continue using the feature, then you must enable some sort of CSRF prevention feature to fix this vulnerability. We recommend the CSRF prevention feature in Apollo Server 3.7.

Workarounds

Instead of upgrading your Apollo Server 2 server, you can specify uploads: false to new ApolloServer to disable the graphql-upload integration and protect against CSRF mutations. (Only do this if you do not actually use the uploads feature in your server!) This will still leave your server vulnerable to non-mutation CSRF attacks such as timing attacks against query operations; you need to upgrade to v3.7 and enable CSRF prevention to protect against these attacks.

Related work

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "apollo-server"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "2.0.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.25.4"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-352"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2022-10-12T14:15:48Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "### Impact\nThe [graphql-upload](https://www.npmjs.com/package/graphql-upload) npm package can execute GraphQL operations contained in `content-type: multipart/form-data` POST requests. Because they are POST requests, they can contain GraphQL mutations. Because they use `content-type: multipart/form-data`, they can be \"simple requests\" which are not preflighted by browsers.\n\nIf your GraphQL server uses `graphql-upload` and uses `SameSite=None` cookies for authentication, then JS on any origin can cause browsers to send cookie-authenticated mutations to your GraphQL server, which will be executed without checking your CORS policy first. (The attack won\u0027t be able to see the response to the mutation if your CORS policy is set up properly, but the side effects of the mutation will still happen.)\n\nAdditionally, if your GraphQL server uses `graphql-upload` and relies on network properties for security (whether by explicitly looking at the client\u0027s IP address or by only being available on a private network), then JS on any origin can cause browsers (which may be on a private network or have an allowed IP address) to send mutations to your GraphQL server, which will be executed without checking your CORS policy first. (This attack does not require your server to use cookies. It is in some cases prevented by some browsers such as Chrome.)\n\nApollo Server 2 bundled `graphql-upload` and enabled it by default, so by default, Apollo Server 2 servers are vulnerable to these CSRF attacks.  (Apollo Server 1 did not bundle `graphql-upload`. Apollo Server 3 no longer bundles `graphql-upload`, although AS3\u0027s docs do document how to manually integrate with `graphql-upload`.) It is enabled even if your server makes no use of the upload functionality.\n\nIf you are running Apollo Server 2 (older than v2.25.4) and do not specify `uploads: false` to `new ApolloServer`, then you are vulnerable to this CSRF mutation attack.\n\nWe recently introduced an opt-in CSRF prevention feature in Apollo Server 3.7.  This feature successfully protects against CSRF even if you have manually integrated your AS3.7 server with `graphql-upload`. However, this feature is not available for Apollo Server 2.\n\n### Patches\nIf you are using Apollo Server 2 and do *not* actually use uploads in your schema (ie, the `Upload` scalar is not used as the argument to any field or in any input object definition, and you do not specify `uploads` to `new ApolloServer`), then upgrading to Apollo Server 2.25.4 will automatically disable `graphql-upload` in your server.  This will fix the CSRF mutation vulnerability.\n\nUpgrading to v2.25.4 does still leave your server vulnerable to non-mutation CSRF attacks such as timing attacks against query operations. To protect yourself against these potentially lower impact CSRF attack, we encourage upgrading to Apollo Server v3.7 and enabling CSRF prevention. See [the Apollo Server 3 migration guide](https://www.apollographql.com/docs/apollo-server/migration/) and the [CSRF prevention docs](https://www.apollographql.com/docs/apollo-server/security/cors/#preventing-cross-site-request-forgery-csrf) for details.\n\nIf you are actively using the uploads feature with Apollo Server 2, then upgrading to v2.25.4 will not disable the feature and you will still be vulnerable. You should instead upgrade to v3.7 and enable the CSRF prevention feature.\n\nIf you are manually integrating the `graphql-upload` package with any version of Apollo Server (or any Node GraphQL server) and need to continue using the feature, then you must enable some sort of CSRF prevention feature to fix this vulnerability. We recommend the CSRF prevention feature in Apollo Server 3.7.\n\n### Workarounds\nInstead of upgrading your Apollo Server 2 server, you can specify `uploads: false` to `new ApolloServer` to disable the `graphql-upload` integration and protect against CSRF mutations. (Only do this if you do not actually use the uploads feature in your server!) This will still leave your server vulnerable to non-mutation CSRF attacks such as timing attacks against query operations; you need to upgrade to v3.7 and enable CSRF prevention to protect against these attacks.\n\n### Related work\n- [PR adding a Security section to the GraphQL multipart request spec](https://github.com/jaydenseric/graphql-multipart-request-spec/pull/64)",
  "id": "GHSA-2p3c-p3qw-69r4",
  "modified": "2023-07-31T20:39:03Z",
  "published": "2022-10-12T14:15:48Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/apollographql/apollo-server/security/advisories/GHSA-2p3c-p3qw-69r4"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/jaydenseric/graphql-multipart-request-spec/pull/64"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/apollographql/apollo-server/commit/82d44985ddca8e61557957d67f41e9c1a705a5ca"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/apollographql/apollo-server"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [],
  "summary": "The graphql-upload library included in Apollo Server 2 is vulnerable to CSRF mutations"
}

GHSA-2P4H-6X4F-47JJ

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-07-18 15:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 06:13
VLAI
Details

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in David Pokorny Replace Word plugin <= 2.1 versions.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2023-37973"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-352"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2023-07-18T13:15:12Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in David Pokorny Replace Word plugin \u003c=\u00a02.1 versions.",
  "id": "GHSA-2p4h-6x4f-47jj",
  "modified": "2024-04-04T06:13:12Z",
  "published": "2023-07-18T15:30:36Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-37973"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/replace-word/wordpress-replace-word-plugin-2-1-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:L",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-2P5C-R4XC-MHVW

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:14 – Updated: 2025-12-31 21:30
VLAI
Details

A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in TinyFileManager all version up to and including 2.4.6 that allows attackers to upload files and run OS commands by inducing the Administrator user to browse a URL controlled by an attacker.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2021-40965"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-352"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2021-09-15T18:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in TinyFileManager all version up to and including 2.4.6 that allows attackers to upload files and run OS commands by inducing the Administrator user to browse a URL controlled by an attacker.",
  "id": "GHSA-2p5c-r4xc-mhvw",
  "modified": "2025-12-31T21:30:22Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T19:14:36Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-40965"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://gist.github.com/omriinbar/953368dcdd9e5eeefd83920166099528"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/prasathmani/tinyfilemanager"
    }
  ],
  "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"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-2P68-5CJX-PX9G

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-07-11 09:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 05:54
VLAI
Details

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Pixelgrade Comments Ratings plugin <= 1.1.6 versions.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2023-23704"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-352"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2023-07-11T08:15:10Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Pixelgrade Comments Ratings plugin \u003c=\u00a01.1.6 versions.",
  "id": "GHSA-2p68-5cjx-px9g",
  "modified": "2024-04-04T05:54:55Z",
  "published": "2023-07-11T09:30:39Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-23704"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/comments-ratings/wordpress-comments-ratings-plugin-1-1-6-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
Architecture and Design

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
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.

Mitigation
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]

Mitigation
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.

Mitigation
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]
Mitigation
Architecture and Design

Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.

Mitigation
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.

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.