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
15017 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-4RVG-CQXF-FRQM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 03:21 – Updated: 2025-04-11 04:09Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability on the Schneider Electric Quantum 140NOE77111, 140NOE77101, and 140NWM10000; M340 BMXNOC0401, BMXNOE0100x, and BMXNOE011xx; and Premium TSXETY4103, TSXETY5103, and TSXWMY100 PLC modules allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests that execute commands, as demonstrated by modifying HTTP credentials.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2013-0663"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2013-04-04T11:58:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability on the Schneider Electric Quantum 140NOE77111, 140NOE77101, and 140NWM10000; M340 BMXNOC0401, BMXNOE0100x, and BMXNOE011xx; and Premium TSXETY4103, TSXETY5103, and TSXWMY100 PLC modules allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests that execute commands, as demonstrated by modifying HTTP credentials.",
"id": "GHSA-4rvg-cqxf-frqm",
"modified": "2025-04-11T04:09:02Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T03:21:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2013-0663"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/44678"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/pdf/ICSA-13-077-01A.pdf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.schneider-electric.com/download/ww/en/details/35081317-Vulnerability-Disclosure-for-Quantum-Premium-and-M340"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.schneider-electric.com/download/ww/en/file/36555639-SEVD-2013-023-01.pdf/?fileName=SEVD-2013-023-01.pdf\u0026reference=SEVD-2013-023-01\u0026docType=Technical-paper"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-4RVH-837W-4R69
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-02-28 18:30 – Updated: 2025-04-01 18:30Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Scott Paterson Easy PayPal & Stripe Buy Now Button.This issue affects Easy PayPal & Stripe Buy Now Button: from n/a through 1.8.1.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-51683"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-02-28T17:15:07Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Scott Paterson Easy PayPal \u0026 Stripe Buy Now Button.This issue affects Easy PayPal \u0026 Stripe Buy Now Button: from n/a through 1.8.1.",
"id": "GHSA-4rvh-837w-4r69",
"modified": "2025-04-01T18:30:33Z",
"published": "2024-02-28T18:30:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-51683"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/wp-ecommerce-paypal/wordpress-easy-paypal-stripe-buy-now-button-plugin-1-8-1-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-4RWM-C5MJ-WH7X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-31 23:11 – Updated: 2026-03-31 23:11Summary
The inventory module's item_save endpoint accepts a user-controllable POST parameter imported that, when set to true, completely bypasses both CSRF token validation and server-side form validation. An authenticated user can craft a direct POST request to save arbitrary inventory item data without CSRF protection and without the field value checks that the FormPresenter validation normally enforces.
Details
In modules/inventory.php, the imported parameter is read from POST input:
File: modules/inventory.php:50
$postImported = admFuncVariableIsValid($_POST, 'imported', 'bool', array('defaultValue' => false));
This is then passed to ItemService:
File: modules/inventory.php:251-256
$itemService = new ItemService($gDb, $itemUuid, $postCopyField, $postCopyNumber, $postImported);
$itemService->save(true);
Inside ItemService::save(), the postImported flag completely skips CSRF and form validation:
File: src/Inventory/Service/ItemService.php:99-109
public function save(bool $multiEdit = false): void
{
global $gCurrentSession, $gL10n, $gSettingsManager;
// check form field input and sanitized it from malicious content
if (!$this->postImported) {
$itemFieldsEditForm = $gCurrentSession->getFormObject($_POST['adm_csrf_token']);
$formValues = $itemFieldsEditForm->validate($_POST, $multiEdit);
} else {
$formValues = $_POST; // Raw $_POST used with no CSRF check, no validation
}
// ... item data is saved using raw $formValues
When imported=1 is sent, the code:
1. Skips $gCurrentSession->getFormObject() — which validates the CSRF token
2. Skips $itemFieldsEditForm->validate() — which sanitizes and validates field values
3. Uses raw $_POST values directly to save to the database
This means:
- CSRF protection is completely bypassed — an external website can trick a logged-in user into modifying inventory data
- Form validation is bypassed — field type checks, required field checks, and input sanitization are all skipped
- Raw user input flows into $this->itemRessource->setValue() and then saveItemData() without the normal server-side sanitization
PoC
# As an authenticated user with inventory access, save arbitrary item data
# without a valid CSRF token and without form validation:
curl -X POST -b 'ADMIDIO_SESSION=<session>' \
'https://admidio.local/modules/inventory.php?mode=item_save' \
-d 'imported=1' \
-d 'adm_csrf_token=anything' \
-d 'INF-CATEGORY=1' \
-d 'INF-ITEMNAME=<script>alert(1)</script>'
# The CSRF token is not checked because imported=true skips the form object lookup.
# The field value is not sanitized because validate() is skipped.
A CSRF attack page would look like:
<html>
<body>
<form action="https://admidio.local/modules/inventory.php?mode=item_save" method="POST">
<input type="hidden" name="imported" value="1" />
<input type="hidden" name="adm_csrf_token" value="dummy" />
<input type="hidden" name="INF-CATEGORY" value="1" />
<input type="hidden" name="INF-ITEMNAME" value="Attacker-controlled data" />
</form>
<script>document.forms[0].submit();</script>
</body>
</html>
Impact
- CSRF bypass: An attacker can trick any logged-in inventory user into creating or modifying inventory items by having them visit a malicious page.
- Validation bypass: Server-side field type validation, required field checks, and input sanitization are all skipped, allowing arbitrary data to be stored.
- Stored XSS potential: Because
validate()is bypassed, unsanitized input may be stored and later rendered to other users (dependent on output encoding in the view layer).
Recommended Fix
Remove the imported parameter bypass from the save logic, or at minimum always validate the CSRF token regardless of the imported flag:
public function save(bool $multiEdit = false): void
{
global $gCurrentSession, $gL10n, $gSettingsManager;
// ALWAYS validate CSRF token
$itemFieldsEditForm = $gCurrentSession->getFormObject($_POST['adm_csrf_token']);
if (!$this->postImported) {
$formValues = $itemFieldsEditForm->validate($_POST, $multiEdit);
} else {
// For imported items, still validate the CSRF token (done above)
// and apply basic sanitization
$formValues = $itemFieldsEditForm->validate($_POST, $multiEdit);
}
// ...
}
Alternatively, the imported flag should only be set by the import workflow itself (via a session variable set during the import process), rather than being controllable via direct POST input.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 5.0.7"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "admidio/admidio"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "5.0.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-34383"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-20",
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-03-31T23:11:48Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-31T21:16:30Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nThe inventory module\u0027s `item_save` endpoint accepts a user-controllable POST parameter `imported` that, when set to `true`, completely bypasses both CSRF token validation and server-side form validation. An authenticated user can craft a direct POST request to save arbitrary inventory item data without CSRF protection and without the field value checks that the `FormPresenter` validation normally enforces.\n\n## Details\n\nIn `modules/inventory.php`, the `imported` parameter is read from POST input:\n\n**File:** `modules/inventory.php:50`\n```php\n$postImported = admFuncVariableIsValid($_POST, \u0027imported\u0027, \u0027bool\u0027, array(\u0027defaultValue\u0027 =\u003e false));\n```\n\nThis is then passed to `ItemService`:\n\n**File:** `modules/inventory.php:251-256`\n```php\n$itemService = new ItemService($gDb, $itemUuid, $postCopyField, $postCopyNumber, $postImported);\n$itemService-\u003esave(true);\n```\n\nInside `ItemService::save()`, the `postImported` flag completely skips CSRF and form validation:\n\n**File:** `src/Inventory/Service/ItemService.php:99-109`\n```php\npublic function save(bool $multiEdit = false): void\n{\n global $gCurrentSession, $gL10n, $gSettingsManager;\n\n // check form field input and sanitized it from malicious content\n if (!$this-\u003epostImported) {\n $itemFieldsEditForm = $gCurrentSession-\u003egetFormObject($_POST[\u0027adm_csrf_token\u0027]);\n $formValues = $itemFieldsEditForm-\u003evalidate($_POST, $multiEdit);\n } else {\n $formValues = $_POST; // Raw $_POST used with no CSRF check, no validation\n }\n // ... item data is saved using raw $formValues\n```\n\nWhen `imported=1` is sent, the code:\n1. Skips `$gCurrentSession-\u003egetFormObject()` \u2014 which validates the CSRF token\n2. Skips `$itemFieldsEditForm-\u003evalidate()` \u2014 which sanitizes and validates field values\n3. Uses raw `$_POST` values directly to save to the database\n\nThis means:\n- CSRF protection is completely bypassed \u2014 an external website can trick a logged-in user into modifying inventory data\n- Form validation is bypassed \u2014 field type checks, required field checks, and input sanitization are all skipped\n- Raw user input flows into `$this-\u003eitemRessource-\u003esetValue()` and then `saveItemData()` without the normal server-side sanitization\n\n## PoC\n\n```bash\n# As an authenticated user with inventory access, save arbitrary item data\n# without a valid CSRF token and without form validation:\n\ncurl -X POST -b \u0027ADMIDIO_SESSION=\u003csession\u003e\u0027 \\\n \u0027https://admidio.local/modules/inventory.php?mode=item_save\u0027 \\\n -d \u0027imported=1\u0027 \\\n -d \u0027adm_csrf_token=anything\u0027 \\\n -d \u0027INF-CATEGORY=1\u0027 \\\n -d \u0027INF-ITEMNAME=\u003cscript\u003ealert(1)\u003c/script\u003e\u0027\n\n# The CSRF token is not checked because imported=true skips the form object lookup.\n# The field value is not sanitized because validate() is skipped.\n```\n\nA CSRF attack page would look like:\n```html\n\u003chtml\u003e\n\u003cbody\u003e\n\u003cform action=\"https://admidio.local/modules/inventory.php?mode=item_save\" method=\"POST\"\u003e\n \u003cinput type=\"hidden\" name=\"imported\" value=\"1\" /\u003e\n \u003cinput type=\"hidden\" name=\"adm_csrf_token\" value=\"dummy\" /\u003e\n \u003cinput type=\"hidden\" name=\"INF-CATEGORY\" value=\"1\" /\u003e\n \u003cinput type=\"hidden\" name=\"INF-ITEMNAME\" value=\"Attacker-controlled data\" /\u003e\n\u003c/form\u003e\n\u003cscript\u003edocument.forms[0].submit();\u003c/script\u003e\n\u003c/body\u003e\n\u003c/html\u003e\n```\n\n## Impact\n\n- **CSRF bypass**: An attacker can trick any logged-in inventory user into creating or modifying inventory items by having them visit a malicious page.\n- **Validation bypass**: Server-side field type validation, required field checks, and input sanitization are all skipped, allowing arbitrary data to be stored.\n- **Stored XSS potential**: Because `validate()` is bypassed, unsanitized input may be stored and later rendered to other users (dependent on output encoding in the view layer).\n\n## Recommended Fix\n\nRemove the `imported` parameter bypass from the save logic, or at minimum always validate the CSRF token regardless of the `imported` flag:\n\n```php\npublic function save(bool $multiEdit = false): void\n{\n global $gCurrentSession, $gL10n, $gSettingsManager;\n\n // ALWAYS validate CSRF token\n $itemFieldsEditForm = $gCurrentSession-\u003egetFormObject($_POST[\u0027adm_csrf_token\u0027]);\n\n if (!$this-\u003epostImported) {\n $formValues = $itemFieldsEditForm-\u003evalidate($_POST, $multiEdit);\n } else {\n // For imported items, still validate the CSRF token (done above)\n // and apply basic sanitization\n $formValues = $itemFieldsEditForm-\u003evalidate($_POST, $multiEdit);\n }\n // ...\n}\n```\n\nAlternatively, the `imported` flag should only be set by the import workflow itself (via a session variable set during the import process), rather than being controllable via direct POST input.",
"id": "GHSA-4rwm-c5mj-wh7x",
"modified": "2026-03-31T23:11:48Z",
"published": "2026-03-31T23:11:48Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Admidio/admidio/security/advisories/GHSA-4rwm-c5mj-wh7x"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-34383"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Admidio/admidio/commit/00494b95dfe847af8b938e4397e5d909d8f36839"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/Admidio/admidio"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Admidio has CSRF and Form Validation Bypass in Inventory Item Save via `imported` Parameter"
}
GHSA-4RWV-25F9-M5GH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 02:28 – Updated: 2022-05-17 02:28The Siemens web application RUGGEDCOM NMS < V1.2 on port 8080/TCP and 8081/TCP could allow a remote attacker to perform a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attack, potentially allowing an attacker to execute administrative operations, provided the targeted user has an active session and is induced to trigger a malicious request.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-2682"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-02-27T11:59:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The Siemens web application RUGGEDCOM NMS \u003c V1.2 on port 8080/TCP and 8081/TCP could allow a remote attacker to perform a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attack, potentially allowing an attacker to execute administrative operations, provided the targeted user has an active session and is induced to trigger a malicious request.",
"id": "GHSA-4rwv-25f9-m5gh",
"modified": "2022-05-17T02:28:37Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T02:28:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-2682"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/advisories/ICSA-17-059-01"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/96458"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1037958"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.siemens.com/cert/pool/cert/siemens_security_advisory_ssa-363881.pdf"
}
],
"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-4RXQ-XCJW-9WW8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-11-10 00:30 – Updated: 2026-04-28 21:33Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Sybre Waaijer Pro Mime Types – Manage file media types plugin <= 1.0.7 versions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-32502"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-11-09T23:15:09Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Sybre Waaijer Pro Mime Types \u2013 Manage file media types plugin \u003c=\u00a01.0.7 versions.",
"id": "GHSA-4rxq-xcjw-9ww8",
"modified": "2026-04-28T21:33:06Z",
"published": "2023-11-10T00:30:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-32502"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/pro-mime-types/vulnerability/wordpress-pro-mime-types-plugin-1-0-7-cross-site-request-forgery-csrf-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/pro-mime-types/wordpress-pro-mime-types-plugin-1-0-7-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:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-4V37-24GM-H554
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-03-01 21:47 – Updated: 2022-03-01 21:47Impact
This vulnerability might allow remote attackers to bypass the CodeIgniter4 CSRF protection mechanism.
Patches
Upgrade to v4.1.9 or later.
Workarounds
These are workarounds for this vulnerability, but you will still need to code as these after upgrading to v4.1.9. Otherwise, the CSRF protection may be bypassed.
When Auto-Routing is Enabled
- Check the request method in the controller method before processing.
E.g.:
if (strtolower($this->request->getMethod()) !== 'post') {
return $this->response->setStatusCode(405)->setBody('Method Not Allowed');
}
When Auto-Routing is Disabled
Do one of the following:
1. Do not use $routes->add(), and use HTTP verbs in routes.
2. Check the request method in the controller method before processing.
E.g.:
if (strtolower($this->request->getMethod()) !== 'post') {
return $this->response->setStatusCode(405)->setBody('Method Not Allowed');
}
References
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: * Open an issue in codeigniter4/CodeIgniter4 * Email us at SECURITY.md
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "codeigniter4/framework"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.1.9"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-24712"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-03-01T21:47:28Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-02-28T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\nThis vulnerability might allow remote attackers to bypass the CodeIgniter4 CSRF protection mechanism. \n\n### Patches\nUpgrade to v4.1.9 or later.\n\n### Workarounds\nThese are workarounds for this vulnerability, but **you will still need to code as these after upgrading to v4.1.9**.\nOtherwise, the CSRF protection may be bypassed.\n\n#### When Auto-Routing is Enabled\n1. Check the request method in the controller method before processing.\n\nE.g.:\n```php\n if (strtolower($this-\u003erequest-\u003egetMethod()) !== \u0027post\u0027) {\n return $this-\u003eresponse-\u003esetStatusCode(405)-\u003esetBody(\u0027Method Not Allowed\u0027);\n }\n```\n\n#### When Auto-Routing is Disabled\nDo one of the following:\n1. Do not use `$routes-\u003eadd()`, and [use HTTP verbs in routes](https://codeigniter4.github.io/userguide/incoming/routing.html#using-http-verbs-in-routes).\n2. Check the request method in the controller method before processing.\n\nE.g.:\n```php\n if (strtolower($this-\u003erequest-\u003egetMethod()) !== \u0027post\u0027) {\n return $this-\u003eresponse-\u003esetStatusCode(405)-\u003esetBody(\u0027Method Not Allowed\u0027);\n }\n```\n\n### References\n- [CodeIgniter4 CSRF protection](https://codeigniter4.github.io/userguide/libraries/security.html#cross-site-request-forgery-csrf)\n\n### For more information\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory:\n* Open an issue in [codeigniter4/CodeIgniter4](https://github.com/codeigniter4/CodeIgniter4/issues)\n* Email us at [SECURITY.md](https://github.com/codeigniter4/CodeIgniter4/blob/develop/SECURITY.md)\n",
"id": "GHSA-4v37-24gm-h554",
"modified": "2022-03-01T21:47:28Z",
"published": "2022-03-01T21:47:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/codeigniter4/CodeIgniter4/security/advisories/GHSA-4v37-24gm-h554"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-24712"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/codeigniter4/CodeIgniter4/blob/7dc2ece32401ebde67122f7d2460efcaee7c352e/user_guide_src/source/changelogs/v4.1.9.rst"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) Protection Bypass Vulnerability in CodeIgniter4"
}
GHSA-4V53-V62J-2637
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 03:01 – Updated: 2022-05-14 03:01An issue was discovered on Intex N150 devices. The router firmware suffers from multiple CSRF injection point vulnerabilities including changing user passwords and router settings.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-12529"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2018-07-02T16:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered on Intex N150 devices. The router firmware suffers from multiple CSRF injection point vulnerabilities including changing user passwords and router settings.",
"id": "GHSA-4v53-v62j-2637",
"modified": "2022-05-14T03:01:04Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T03:01:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-12529"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/44933"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/44939"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://securitywarrior9.blogspot.com/2018/06/cross-site-request-forgery-intex-router.html"
}
],
"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-4V57-P22C-8FRV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 04:49 – Updated: 2022-05-17 04:49Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in ImageCMS before 4.2 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that conduct SQL injection attacks via the q parameter, related to CVE-2012-6290.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2013-7334"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2014-03-11T16:17:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in ImageCMS before 4.2 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that conduct SQL injection attacks via the q parameter, related to CVE-2012-6290.",
"id": "GHSA-4v57-p22c-8frv",
"modified": "2022-05-17T04:49:54Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T04:49:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2013-7334"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.htbridge.com/advisory/HTB23132"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/bugtraq/2013-01/0105.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://forum.imagecms.net/viewtopic.php?id=1436"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://osvdb.org/show/osvdb/89512"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/119806/ImageCMS-4.0.0b-SQL-Injection.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-4V5C-5V6C-37PJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-07-01 00:01 – Updated: 2022-12-09 14:30Jenkins Matrix Reloaded Plugin 1.1.3 and earlier does not require POST requests for an HTTP endpoint, resulting in a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability. This vulnerability allows attackers to rebuild previous matrix builds.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "net.praqma:matrix-reloaded"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "1.1.3"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-34789"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-12-09T14:30:59Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-06-30T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Jenkins Matrix Reloaded Plugin 1.1.3 and earlier does not require POST requests for an HTTP endpoint, resulting in a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability. This vulnerability allows attackers to rebuild previous matrix builds.",
"id": "GHSA-4v5c-5v6c-37pj",
"modified": "2022-12-09T14:30:59Z",
"published": "2022-07-01T00:01:07Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-34789"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/matrix-reloaded-plugin"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.jenkins.io/security/advisory/2022-06-30/#SECURITY-2016"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Jenkins Matrix Reloaded Plugin vulnerable to CSRF"
}
GHSA-4V5H-4J58-WHHG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:30 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:30A vulnerability has been identified in SIMATIC CP 343-1 Advanced (incl. SIPLUS NET variant) (All versions < V3.0.53), SIMATIC CP 443-1 Advanced (incl. SIPLUS NET variant) (All versions < V3.2.17), SIMATIC S7-300 PN/DP CPU family (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions), SIMATIC S7-400 PN/DP CPU family (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions). The integrated web server at port 80/TCP or port 443/TCP of the affected devices could allow remote attackers to perform actions with the permissions of an authenticated user, provided the targeted user has an active session and is induced to trigger the malicious request.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2016-8673"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2016-11-23T11:59:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability has been identified in SIMATIC CP 343-1 Advanced (incl. SIPLUS NET variant) (All versions \u003c V3.0.53), SIMATIC CP 443-1 Advanced (incl. SIPLUS NET variant) (All versions \u003c V3.2.17), SIMATIC S7-300 PN/DP CPU family (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions), SIMATIC S7-400 PN/DP CPU family (incl. SIPLUS variants) (All versions). The integrated web server at port 80/TCP or port 443/TCP of the affected devices could allow remote attackers to perform actions with the permissions of an authenticated user, provided the targeted user has an active session and is induced to trigger the malicious request.",
"id": "GHSA-4v5h-4j58-whhg",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:30:18Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:30:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-8673"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/pdf/ssa-603476.pdf"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
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.