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
15012 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-4PR8-RCV2-XHVP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-11-07 06:31 – Updated: 2026-11-07 06:31IBM API Connect 10.0.8.0 through 10.0.8.12 and 12.1.0.0 through 12.1.1.2 could allow a remote attacker to force a user to authenticate into an attacker-controlled account due to cross-site request forgery. The sign-in flow does not sufficiently verify that a login response belongs to the user's own request, which could link the victim's session to an account controlled by the attacker.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-17369"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-11-07T05:18:49Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "IBM API Connect 10.0.8.0 through 10.0.8.12 and 12.1.0.0 through 12.1.1.2 could allow a remote attacker to force a user to authenticate into an attacker-controlled account due to cross-site request forgery. The sign-in flow does not sufficiently verify that a login response belongs to the user\u0027s own request, which could link the victim\u0027s session to an account controlled by the attacker.",
"id": "GHSA-4pr8-rcv2-xhvp",
"modified": "2026-11-07T06:31:21Z",
"published": "2026-11-07T06:31:21Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-17369"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7295635"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7295637"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-4PWX-P54M-78G5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-02 03:15 – Updated: 2025-04-09 04:04Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Bugzilla 2.22 before 2.22.7, 3.0 before 3.0.7, 3.2 before 3.2.1, and 3.3 before 3.3.2 allows remote attackers to delete keywords and user preferences via a link or IMG tag to (1) editkeywords.cgi or (2) userprefs.cgi.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2009-0483"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2009-02-09T17:30:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Bugzilla 2.22 before 2.22.7, 3.0 before 3.0.7, 3.2 before 3.2.1, and 3.3 before 3.3.2 allows remote attackers to delete keywords and user preferences via a link or IMG tag to (1) editkeywords.cgi or (2) userprefs.cgi.",
"id": "GHSA-4pwx-p54m-78g5",
"modified": "2025-04-09T04:04:28Z",
"published": "2022-05-02T03:15:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2009-0483"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=466692"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=472362"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-announce/2009-March/msg00664.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-announce/2009-March/msg00687.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/34361"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.bugzilla.org/security/2.22.6"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/33580"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-4Q27-4RRQ-FX95
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-03 23:43 – Updated: 2026-04-06 23:43Severity: Medium CWE: CWE-352 (Cross-Site Request Forgery)
Summary
The player skin configuration endpoint at admin/playerUpdate.json.php does not validate CSRF tokens. The plugins table is explicitly excluded from the ORM's domain-based security check via ignoreTableSecurityCheck(), removing the only other layer of defense. Combined with SameSite=None cookies, a cross-origin POST can modify the video player appearance on the entire platform.
Details
In admin/playerUpdate.json.php at line 17, the player skin is set directly from POST data:
$pluginDO->skin = $_POST['skin'];
No CSRF token is validated anywhere in the endpoint. Normally, the ORM layer performs a Referer/Origin domain check as a secondary defense against cross-origin writes. However, the plugins table is registered in ignoreTableSecurityCheck(), which explicitly bypasses this ORM-level protection for plugin configuration.
AVideo's session cookies are configured with SameSite=None, meaning the admin's authenticated session cookie is automatically included in cross-origin POST requests from any website.
An attacker can craft a page that, when visited by an authenticated admin, silently changes the player skin to any value, including potentially invalid or disruptive configurations.
Proof of Concept
Host the following HTML on an attacker-controlled domain:
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head><title>CSRF Player Skin</title></head>
<body>
<h1>Loading video...</h1>
<form id="csrf" method="POST"
action="https://your-avideo-instance.com/admin/playerUpdate.json.php">
<input type="hidden" name="skin" value="minimalist" />
</form>
<script>
document.getElementById("csrf").submit();
</script>
</body>
</html>
When an authenticated admin visits this page, the platform's player skin is changed without their knowledge.
Impact
- Platform-wide player appearance modification without admin consent
- Potential disruption of video playback if an invalid skin value is set
- The ORM security bypass via
ignoreTableSecurityCheck()means there is no fallback protection - Can be used as part of a broader defacement or social engineering attack
Recommended Fix
Add CSRF token validation at admin/playerUpdate.json.php, before processing POST data:
// admin/playerUpdate.json.php (before line 17)
if (!isGlobalTokenValid()) {
die('{"error":"Invalid CSRF token"}');
}
Found by aisafe.io
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "wwbn/avideo"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "26.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-35181"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-03T23:43:23Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-06T20:16:26Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "**Severity:** Medium\n**CWE:** CWE-352 (Cross-Site Request Forgery)\n\n## Summary\n\nThe player skin configuration endpoint at `admin/playerUpdate.json.php` does not validate CSRF tokens. The `plugins` table is explicitly excluded from the ORM\u0027s domain-based security check via `ignoreTableSecurityCheck()`, removing the only other layer of defense. Combined with `SameSite=None` cookies, a cross-origin POST can modify the video player appearance on the entire platform.\n\n## Details\n\nIn `admin/playerUpdate.json.php` at line 17, the player skin is set directly from POST data:\n\n```php\n$pluginDO-\u003eskin = $_POST[\u0027skin\u0027];\n```\n\nNo CSRF token is validated anywhere in the endpoint. Normally, the ORM layer performs a Referer/Origin domain check as a secondary defense against cross-origin writes. However, the `plugins` table is registered in `ignoreTableSecurityCheck()`, which explicitly bypasses this ORM-level protection for plugin configuration.\n\nAVideo\u0027s session cookies are configured with `SameSite=None`, meaning the admin\u0027s authenticated session cookie is automatically included in cross-origin POST requests from any website.\n\nAn attacker can craft a page that, when visited by an authenticated admin, silently changes the player skin to any value, including potentially invalid or disruptive configurations.\n\n## Proof of Concept\n\nHost the following HTML on an attacker-controlled domain:\n\n```html\n\u003c!DOCTYPE html\u003e\n\u003chtml\u003e\n\u003chead\u003e\u003ctitle\u003eCSRF Player Skin\u003c/title\u003e\u003c/head\u003e\n\u003cbody\u003e\n\u003ch1\u003eLoading video...\u003c/h1\u003e\n\u003cform id=\"csrf\" method=\"POST\"\n action=\"https://your-avideo-instance.com/admin/playerUpdate.json.php\"\u003e\n \u003cinput type=\"hidden\" name=\"skin\" value=\"minimalist\" /\u003e\n\u003c/form\u003e\n\u003cscript\u003e\n document.getElementById(\"csrf\").submit();\n\u003c/script\u003e\n\u003c/body\u003e\n\u003c/html\u003e\n```\n\nWhen an authenticated admin visits this page, the platform\u0027s player skin is changed without their knowledge.\n\n## Impact\n\n- Platform-wide player appearance modification without admin consent\n- Potential disruption of video playback if an invalid skin value is set\n- The ORM security bypass via `ignoreTableSecurityCheck()` means there is no fallback protection\n- Can be used as part of a broader defacement or social engineering attack\n\n## Recommended Fix\n\nAdd CSRF token validation at `admin/playerUpdate.json.php`, before processing POST data:\n\n```php\n// admin/playerUpdate.json.php (before line 17)\nif (!isGlobalTokenValid()) {\n die(\u0027{\"error\":\"Invalid CSRF token\"}\u0027);\n}\n```\n\n---\n*Found by [aisafe.io](https://aisafe.io)*",
"id": "GHSA-4q27-4rrq-fx95",
"modified": "2026-04-06T23:43:19Z",
"published": "2026-04-03T23:43:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WWBN/AVideo/security/advisories/GHSA-4q27-4rrq-fx95"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-35181"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/WWBN/AVideo"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "AVideo: CSRF on Player Skin Configuration via admin/playerUpdate.json.php"
}
GHSA-4Q34-XWFG-PM6W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-17 18:35 – Updated: 2026-06-17 18:35Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) in NewsItemApiController in SimplCommerce prior to commit 6233d73e allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to create or modify news items as an administrator via a crafted form submitted to /api/news-items, due to missing anti-CSRF protection.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-9591"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-17T14:18:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) in NewsItemApiController in SimplCommerce prior to commit 6233d73e allows an unauthenticated remote attacker to create or modify news items as an administrator via a crafted form submitted to `/api/news-items`, due to missing anti-CSRF protection.",
"id": "GHSA-4q34-xwfg-pm6w",
"modified": "2026-06-17T18:35:55Z",
"published": "2026-06-17T18:35:55Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-9591"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/simplcommerce/SimplCommerce/pull/1150"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/simplcommerce/SimplCommerce/commit/6233d73e134c887fc3f3308d20710bec096d45e3"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/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-4Q3R-RVM6-J4MP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-11-17 00:31 – Updated: 2023-11-22 18:30Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in VJInfotech Woo Custom and Sequential Order Number plugin <= 2.6.0 versions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-47687"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-11-16T23:15:08Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in VJInfotech Woo Custom and Sequential Order Number plugin \u003c=\u00a02.6.0 versions.",
"id": "GHSA-4q3r-rvm6-j4mp",
"modified": "2023-11-22T18:30:54Z",
"published": "2023-11-17T00:31:06Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-47687"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/woo-custom-and-sequential-order-number/wordpress-woo-custom-and-sequential-order-number-plugin-2-6-0-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-4Q47-JXHQ-7FJ2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-14 09:31 – Updated: 2026-02-14 09:31The WP Quick Contact Us plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0. This is due to missing nonce validation on the settings update functionality. 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-2026-1394"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-14T07:16:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The WP Quick Contact Us plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0. This is due to missing nonce validation on the settings update functionality. 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-4q47-jxhq-7fj2",
"modified": "2026-02-14T09:31:33Z",
"published": "2026-02-14T09:31:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-1394"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wp-quick-contact-us/tags/1.0/wp-quick-contact-us.php#L228"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wp-quick-contact-us/trunk/wp-quick-contact-us.php#L228"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/ab1053e4-5135-49cc-a81b-9cf66e93bfef?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-4Q4M-8H83-FCMR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-14 00:32 – Updated: 2026-08-14 00:32Budibase before 3.40.0 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability in the chat-link handoff endpoint that allows attackers to bind an external chat identity to a victim's account. Attackers can craft a phishing page that auto-submits a POST request with a leaked confirmation token to bind their chat identity to a victim user's account, enabling impersonation within agent operations and inheritance of victim permissions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-72849"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-13T22:17:24Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Budibase before 3.40.0 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability in the chat-link handoff endpoint that allows attackers to bind an external chat identity to a victim\u0027s account. Attackers can craft a phishing page that auto-submits a POST request with a leaked confirmation token to bind their chat identity to a victim user\u0027s account, enabling impersonation within agent operations and inheritance of victim permissions.",
"id": "GHSA-4q4m-8h83-fcmr",
"modified": "2026-08-14T00:32:02Z",
"published": "2026-08-14T00:32:02Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Budibase/budibase/security/advisories/GHSA-pvcr-8mvp-w8qr"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-72849"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/budibase-before-identity-confusion-via-chat-link-handoff-csrf"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/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-4Q4R-V67R-W6QH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-07-22 12:30 – Updated: 2025-07-22 12:30The Like & Share My Site plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 0.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the 'lsms_admin' page. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update settings and inject malicious web scripts via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-7685"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-07-22T10:15:26Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Like \u0026 Share My Site plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 0.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the \u0027lsms_admin\u0027 page. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update settings and inject malicious web scripts via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.",
"id": "GHSA-4q4r-v67r-w6qh",
"modified": "2025-07-22T12:30:43Z",
"published": "2025-07-22T12:30:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-7685"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/like-share-my-site/trunk/lsms.php"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/5f126296-0a6e-4d47-8f1a-ce2aa097f21d?source=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:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-4Q5C-3VP3-RVF6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-24 18:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:34Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in silencecm Twitter Card Generator allows Stored XSS. This issue affects Twitter Card Generator: from n/a through 1.0.5.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-46516"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-04-24T16:15:42Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in silencecm Twitter Card Generator allows Stored XSS. This issue affects Twitter Card Generator: from n/a through 1.0.5.",
"id": "GHSA-4q5c-3vp3-rvf6",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:34:58Z",
"published": "2025-04-24T18:31:08Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-46516"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/twitter-card-generator/vulnerability/wordpress-twitter-card-generator-plugin-1-0-5-cross-site-request-forgery-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-4Q74-W4P3-C8CX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-05 00:30 – Updated: 2026-08-05 00:30A security vulnerability has been detected in RackTables up to 0.22.0/e5fff9f8aab339798ed47e8c6d7d977ed97a82bd. This vulnerability affects unknown code. The manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The project maintainer confirms: "[I]t seems plausible, in that RackTables does not at this time have any CSRF prevention. You may assign a CVE ID to this, but there is no guarantee it will be handled in urgent, or even timely, manner, or at all."
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-18819"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-04T23:16:51Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "A security vulnerability has been detected in RackTables up to 0.22.0/e5fff9f8aab339798ed47e8c6d7d977ed97a82bd. This vulnerability affects unknown code. The manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The project maintainer confirms: \"[I]t seems plausible, in that RackTables does not at this time have any CSRF prevention. You may assign a CVE ID to this, but there is no guarantee it will be handled in urgent, or even timely, manner, or at all.\"",
"id": "GHSA-4q74-w4p3-c8cx",
"modified": "2026-08-05T00:30:40Z",
"published": "2026-08-05T00:30:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-18819"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/fa1c4/security-advisories/blob/main/RackTables/RackTables_CSRF_report.md"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/fa1c4/security-advisories/tree/main/RackTables/PoC"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-18819"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/submit/857970"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/385818"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/385818/cti"
}
],
"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:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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"
}
]
}
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.