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
15010 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-3C5H-X9VW-JJ93
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-11-24 15:30 – Updated: 2022-11-28 21:30A vulnerability was found in rickxy Stock Management System and classified as problematic. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file us_transac.php?action=add. The manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The associated identifier of this vulnerability is VDB-214331.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-4090"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-11-24T13:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability was found in rickxy Stock Management System and classified as problematic. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file us_transac.php?action=add. The manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery. The attack may be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The associated identifier of this vulnerability is VDB-214331.",
"id": "GHSA-3c5h-x9vw-jj93",
"modified": "2022-11-28T21:30:22Z",
"published": "2022-11-24T15:30:14Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-4090"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rickxy/Stock-Management-System/issues/4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.214331"
}
],
"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-3C6H-P7MJ-5M9J
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 02:44 – Updated: 2022-05-14 02:44Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Apache CouchDB 0.8.0 through 0.11.0 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for direct requests to an installation URL.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2010-2234"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2010-08-19T22:00:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Apache CouchDB 0.8.0 through 0.11.0 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for direct requests to an installation URL.",
"id": "GHSA-3c6h-p7mj-5m9j",
"modified": "2022-05-14T02:44:29Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T02:44:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2010-2234"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624764"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2010/Aug/199"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/513174/100/0/threaded"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/42501"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-3C8M-2JHW-V237
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 03:37 – Updated: 2022-05-17 03:37Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability on Moxa MiiNePort_E1_4641 devices with firmware 1.1.10 Build 09120714, MiiNePort_E1_7080 devices with firmware 1.1.10 Build 09120714, MiiNePort_E2_1242 devices with firmware 1.1 Build 10080614, MiiNePort_E2_4561 devices with firmware 1.1 Build 10080614, and MiiNePort E3 devices with firmware 1.0 Build 11071409 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2016-2285"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2016-05-31T01:59:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability on Moxa MiiNePort_E1_4641 devices with firmware 1.1.10 Build 09120714, MiiNePort_E1_7080 devices with firmware 1.1.10 Build 09120714, MiiNePort_E2_1242 devices with firmware 1.1 Build 10080614, MiiNePort_E2_4561 devices with firmware 1.1 Build 10080614, and MiiNePort E3 devices with firmware 1.0 Build 11071409 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users.",
"id": "GHSA-3c8m-2jhw-v237",
"modified": "2022-05-17T03:37:38Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T03:37:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-2285"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/advisories/ICSA-16-145-01"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2016/May/7"
}
],
"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-3CC2-H3V6-RQPQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-02 22:46 – Updated: 2026-10-02 22:46High
Package
gomod github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel
Affected versions
3.7.3
Patched versions
(none yet — leave blank until a fix is released)
Description
Summary
/ws/network/proxy is an admin-only WebSocket forward-proxy endpoint (target URL and headers fully attacker-specifiable via query parameters). Its websocket.Upgrader explicitly overrides CheckOrigin to unconditionally return true — disabling the origin validation that the gorilla/websocket library otherwise enforces by default. WebSocket handshake requests are not subject to CORS preflight at all (unlike fetch/XHR), so origin validation for WebSocket endpoints has to be done deliberately by the server; here it has been deliberately turned off instead. Combined with the endpoint's own query-parameter-driven proxy target, this is a textbook Cross-Site WebSocket Hijacking (CSWSH) primitive on a capability that amounts to an authenticated network pivot through the SiYuan kernel process.
Details
// kernel/api/network.go:501
upgrader := websocket.Upgrader{
CheckOrigin: func(r *http.Request) bool { return true },
}
clientConn, upgradeErr := upgrader.Upgrade(c.Writer, c.Request, upgradeHeaders)
Route registration (admin-role-gated):
// kernel/api/router.go:614
ginServer.Handle("GET", "/ws/network/proxy", model.CheckAuth, model.CheckAdminRole, wsProxy)
The proxy target is fully attacker-controllable via query parameters, decoded and dialed directly:
// kernel/api/network.go:348
func parseForwardProxyParams(c *gin.Context) (parsedURL *url.URL, headers *http.Header, timeout time.Duration, err error) {
uParam := c.Query("u")
...
uBytes, decErr := base64.RawURLEncoding.DecodeString(uParam)
...
parsedURL, err = url.ParseRequestURI(string(uBytes))
...
hParam := c.Query("h") // optional forwarded headers, also base64-encoded
A malicious webpage can construct, entirely from JavaScript with no special access:
new WebSocket("ws://127.0.0.1:6806/ws/network/proxy?u=" + base64url(attackerChosenTargetURL));
WebSocket handshake requests are GET requests carrying ambient cookies exactly like any other cross-site navigation, and are not covered by CORS preflight protections at all, this is a distinct attack surface from ordinary fetch/XHR-based CSRF, and easy to overlook precisely because the usual CORS mental model doesn't apply to it. Whether this is currently exploitable in a given browser depends on the same session-cookie SameSite configuration already covered by a separate report on this repository (no explicit SameSite is set on the session cookie), but even where that provides incidental protection today, the explicit CheckOrigin: func(r *http.Request) bool { return true } override removes a defense-in-depth layer that would otherwise exist automatically from the WebSocket library's own safe default, and is worth fixing independently of the cookie-attribute question.
Impact
If reachable (dependent on browser/cookie-attribute behavior at time of exploitation, as above), a malicious website visited by a user with an active, admin-privileged SiYuan session could open a WebSocket connection to this endpoint and direct the SiYuan kernel process to proxy arbitrary network traffic to an attacker-chosen target, effectively an authenticated SSRF/network-pivot primitive, using the victim's own machine and any network position it has (e.g., internal/localhost-only services on the victim's LAN that aren't reachable from the public internet), entirely via a drive-by visit to an unrelated website while SiYuan happens to be running.
PoC
No live browser PoC was run for this report, this is a code-level confirmation that the CheckOrigin override exists and unconditionally returns true, combined with tracing the fully attacker-controlled proxy-target construction. I also checked whether the other WebSocket-adjacent endpoints (/ws/plugin/rpc, /ws/broadcast) share this issue: they use a different WebSocket library (gws, not gorilla/websocket) with a different upgrade code path I have not independently verified for its own origin-checking defaults, flagging this as worth a follow-up check by your team rather than claiming it applies there too.
## Affected products
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Ecosystem | **Go** |
| Package name | `github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel` |
| Affected versions | `<= 3.7.3` (confirmed present in 3.7.3; maintainers should confirm lower bound) |
| Patched versions | *(none yet — leave blank until a fix is released)* |
## Severity
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Vector string | `CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:N` |
| Score | **5.5 (Medium)**, reflecting that real-world exploitability depends on the co-occurring session-cookie `SameSite` question (also separately reported) and requires a victim with an active admin session to visit an attacker-controlled page (`AC:H`, `UI:R`); I'd expect this to be scored higher by your team if you determine the cookie/browser-behavior precondition is reliably met, since the underlying capability (network pivot through the kernel process) is significant. |
## Weaknesses (CWE)
- **CWE-346** — Origin Validation Error (primary — this is the textbook CWE for CSWSH)
- **CWE-352** — Cross-Site Request Forgery (the broader category this specific WebSocket variant falls under)
- **CWE-918** — Server-Side Request Forgery (secondary — the resulting capability once a connection is hijacked)
-
Suggested Fix
Replace CheckOrigin: func(r *http.Request) bool { return true } with a real check — validate the Origin header against the expected local/loopback origin (or the configured workspace's own address), mirroring how IsLoopbackCallback-style validation is already done correctly elsewhere in this codebase (e.g. the MCP OAuth client's loopback-callback check). Also worth auditing the gws-based WebSocket endpoints (/ws/plugin/rpc, /ws/broadcast) for their own origin-validation defaults, since I did not verify those independently.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.0.0-20260803045322-cb67e0b4fab5"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-74802"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-346",
"CWE-352",
"CWE-918"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-10-02T22:46:18Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "**High**\n\n## Package\ngomod `github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel`\n\n## Affected versions\n3.7.3\n\n## Patched versions\n*(none yet \u2014 leave blank until a fix is released)*\n\n## Description\n\n### Summary\n`/ws/network/proxy` is an admin-only WebSocket forward-proxy endpoint (target URL and headers fully attacker-specifiable via query parameters). Its `websocket.Upgrader` explicitly overrides `CheckOrigin` to unconditionally return `true` \u2014 disabling the origin validation that the `gorilla/websocket` library otherwise enforces **by default**. WebSocket handshake requests are not subject to CORS preflight at all (unlike `fetch`/XHR), so origin validation for WebSocket endpoints has to be done deliberately by the server; here it has been deliberately turned *off* instead. Combined with the endpoint\u0027s own query-parameter-driven proxy target, this is a textbook Cross-Site WebSocket Hijacking (CSWSH) primitive on a capability that amounts to an authenticated network pivot through the SiYuan kernel process.\n\n### Details\n\n```go\n// kernel/api/network.go:501\nupgrader := websocket.Upgrader{\n CheckOrigin: func(r *http.Request) bool { return true },\n}\nclientConn, upgradeErr := upgrader.Upgrade(c.Writer, c.Request, upgradeHeaders)\n```\n\nRoute registration (admin-role-gated):\n```go\n// kernel/api/router.go:614\nginServer.Handle(\"GET\", \"/ws/network/proxy\", model.CheckAuth, model.CheckAdminRole, wsProxy)\n```\n\nThe proxy target is fully attacker-controllable via query parameters, decoded and dialed directly:\n```go\n// kernel/api/network.go:348\nfunc parseForwardProxyParams(c *gin.Context) (parsedURL *url.URL, headers *http.Header, timeout time.Duration, err error) {\n uParam := c.Query(\"u\")\n ...\n uBytes, decErr := base64.RawURLEncoding.DecodeString(uParam)\n ...\n parsedURL, err = url.ParseRequestURI(string(uBytes))\n ...\n hParam := c.Query(\"h\") // optional forwarded headers, also base64-encoded\n```\n\nA malicious webpage can construct, entirely from JavaScript with no special access:\n```js\nnew WebSocket(\"ws://127.0.0.1:6806/ws/network/proxy?u=\" + base64url(attackerChosenTargetURL));\n```\nWebSocket handshake requests are GET requests carrying ambient cookies exactly like any other cross-site navigation, and are not covered by CORS preflight protections at all, this is a distinct attack surface from ordinary `fetch`/XHR-based CSRF, and easy to overlook precisely because the usual CORS mental model doesn\u0027t apply to it. Whether this is currently exploitable in a given browser depends on the same session-cookie `SameSite` configuration already covered by a separate report on this repository (no explicit `SameSite` is set on the session cookie), but even where that provides incidental protection today, the explicit `CheckOrigin: func(r *http.Request) bool { return true }` override removes a defense-in-depth layer that would otherwise exist automatically from the WebSocket library\u0027s own safe default, and is worth fixing independently of the cookie-attribute question.\n\n### Impact\nIf reachable (dependent on browser/cookie-attribute behavior at time of exploitation, as above), a malicious website visited by a user with an active, admin-privileged SiYuan session could open a WebSocket connection to this endpoint and direct the SiYuan kernel process to proxy arbitrary network traffic to an attacker-chosen target, effectively an authenticated SSRF/network-pivot primitive, using the victim\u0027s own machine and any network position it has (e.g., internal/localhost-only services on the victim\u0027s LAN that aren\u0027t reachable from the public internet), entirely via a drive-by visit to an unrelated website while SiYuan happens to be running.\n\n### PoC\nNo live browser PoC was run for this report, this is a code-level confirmation that the `CheckOrigin` override exists and unconditionally returns `true`, combined with tracing the fully attacker-controlled proxy-target construction. I also checked whether the other WebSocket-adjacent endpoints (`/ws/plugin/rpc`, `/ws/broadcast`) share this issue: they use a different WebSocket library (`gws`, not `gorilla/websocket`) with a different upgrade code path I have not independently verified for its own origin-checking defaults, flagging this as worth a follow-up check by your team rather than claiming it applies there too.\n\n```\n## Affected products\n\n| Field | Value |\n|---|---|\n| Ecosystem | **Go** |\n| Package name | `github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/kernel` |\n| Affected versions | `\u003c= 3.7.3` (confirmed present in 3.7.3; maintainers should confirm lower bound) |\n| Patched versions | *(none yet \u2014 leave blank until a fix is released)* |\n\n## Severity\n\n| Field | Value |\n|---|---|\n| Vector string | `CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:N` |\n| Score | **5.5 (Medium)**, reflecting that real-world exploitability depends on the co-occurring session-cookie `SameSite` question (also separately reported) and requires a victim with an active admin session to visit an attacker-controlled page (`AC:H`, `UI:R`); I\u0027d expect this to be scored higher by your team if you determine the cookie/browser-behavior precondition is reliably met, since the underlying capability (network pivot through the kernel process) is significant. |\n\n## Weaknesses (CWE)\n\n- **CWE-346** \u2014 Origin Validation Error (primary \u2014 this is the textbook CWE for CSWSH)\n- **CWE-352** \u2014 Cross-Site Request Forgery (the broader category this specific WebSocket variant falls under)\n- **CWE-918** \u2014 Server-Side Request Forgery (secondary \u2014 the resulting capability once a connection is hijacked)\n-\n```\n\n## Suggested Fix\nReplace `CheckOrigin: func(r *http.Request) bool { return true }` with a real check \u2014 validate the `Origin` header against the expected local/loopback origin (or the configured workspace\u0027s own address), mirroring how `IsLoopbackCallback`-style validation is already done correctly elsewhere in this codebase (e.g. the MCP OAuth client\u0027s loopback-callback check). Also worth auditing the `gws`-based WebSocket endpoints (`/ws/plugin/rpc`, `/ws/broadcast`) for their own origin-validation defaults, since I did not verify those independently.",
"id": "GHSA-3cc2-h3v6-rqpq",
"modified": "2026-10-02T22:46:18Z",
"published": "2026-10-02T22:46:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/security/advisories/GHSA-3cc2-h3v6-rqpq"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-74802"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/commit/cb67e0b4fab57c9c5f458c1fd0df5ecf4417b696"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/siyuan-note/siyuan/releases/tag/v3.8.0"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/siyuan-cross-site-websocket-hijacking-via-network-proxy"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "SiYuan: Cross-Site WebSocket Hijacking on the admin-only network proxy endpoint (`/ws/network/proxy`) via explicit `CheckOrigin: true` bypass"
}
GHSA-3CC4-3F86-Q6QH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-02-06 06:31 – Updated: 2025-02-06 06:31IBM ApplinX 11.1 is vulnerable to cross-site request forgery which could allow an attacker to execute malicious and unauthorized actions transmitted from a user that the website trusts.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-49794"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-02-06T00:15:26Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "IBM ApplinX 11.1 is vulnerable to cross-site request forgery which could allow an attacker to execute malicious and unauthorized actions transmitted from a user that the website trusts.",
"id": "GHSA-3cc4-3f86-q6qh",
"modified": "2025-02-06T06:31:26Z",
"published": "2025-02-06T06:31:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-49794"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7182522"
}
],
"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-3CH8-4F9P-Q5P6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-16 21:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:33Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Tussendoor internet & marketing Call me Now allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Call me Now: from n/a through 1.0.5.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-23745"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-16T20:15:46Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Tussendoor internet \u0026 marketing Call me Now allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Call me Now: from n/a through 1.0.5.",
"id": "GHSA-3ch8-4f9p-q5p6",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:33:13Z",
"published": "2025-01-16T21:31:02Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-23745"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/call-me-now/vulnerability/wordpress-call-me-now-plugin-1-0-5-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-3CMM-8XW2-C67R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-16 18:32 – Updated: 2026-03-17 18:30Hereta ETH-IMC408M firmware version 1.0.15 and prior contain a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to modify device configuration by exploiting missing CSRF protections in setup.cgi. Attackers can host malicious pages that submit forged requests using automatically-included HTTP Basic Authentication credentials to add RADIUS accounts, alter network settings, or trigger diagnostics.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-29521"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-16T18:16:08Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Hereta ETH-IMC408M firmware version 1.0.15 and prior contain a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to modify device configuration by exploiting missing CSRF protections in setup.cgi. Attackers can host malicious pages that submit forged requests using automatically-included HTTP Basic Authentication credentials to add RADIUS accounts, alter network settings, or trigger diagnostics.",
"id": "GHSA-3cmm-8xw2-c67r",
"modified": "2026-03-17T18:30:32Z",
"published": "2026-03-16T18:32:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-29521"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20250820105319/http://hereta.com"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/hereta-eth-imc408m-csrf-via-configuration-setup"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"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-3CMX-WHGG-CR4J
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:13 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:13A cross-site request forgery (CSRF) in index.php/Dswjcms/User/tfAdd of Dswjcms 1.6.4 allows authenticated attackers to arbitrarily add administrator users.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-19268"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-09-09T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A cross-site request forgery (CSRF) in index.php/Dswjcms/User/tfAdd of Dswjcms 1.6.4 allows authenticated attackers to arbitrarily add administrator users.",
"id": "GHSA-3cmx-whgg-cr4j",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:13:59Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:13:59Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-19268"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/tifaweb/Dswjcms/issues/6"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-3CRG-PXFC-QCXM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-02-29 06:30 – Updated: 2025-03-18 12:30Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Ernest Marcinko Ajax Search Lite allows Reflected XSS.This issue affects Ajax Search Lite: from n/a through 4.11.4.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-21752"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-02-29T06:15:47Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Ernest Marcinko Ajax Search Lite allows Reflected XSS.This issue affects Ajax Search Lite: from n/a through 4.11.4.",
"id": "GHSA-3crg-pxfc-qcxm",
"modified": "2025-03-18T12:30:47Z",
"published": "2024-02-29T06:30:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-21752"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/ajax-search-lite/wordpress-ajax-search-lite-plugin-4-11-4-reflected-xss-via-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:C/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-3CX2-GF73-34WR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-14 09:31 – Updated: 2026-04-08 18:34The MDirector Newsletter plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 4.5.8. This is due to missing nonce verification on the mdirectorNewsletterSave function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the plugin's 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-2025-14852"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-14T07:16:06Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The MDirector Newsletter plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 4.5.8. This is due to missing nonce verification on the mdirectorNewsletterSave function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the plugin\u0027s settings via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.",
"id": "GHSA-3cx2-gf73-34wr",
"modified": "2026-04-08T18:34:03Z",
"published": "2026-02-14T09:31:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-14852"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/mdirector-newsletter/tags/4.5.8/admin/class-mdirector-newsletter-admin.php#L170"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/mdirector-newsletter/tags/4.5.8/admin/class-mdirector-newsletter-admin.php#L937"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3463535"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/9be389b4-0f76-4f58-806e-dfba531934ea?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"
}
]
}
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.