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
15020 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-5RF8-XHGP-9MG9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-08 09:31 – Updated: 2026-04-14 15:30Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in priyanshumittal Appointment appointment allows Upload a Web Shell to a Web Server.This issue affects Appointment: from n/a through <= 3.5.5.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-39620"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-08T09:16:32Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in priyanshumittal Appointment appointment allows Upload a Web Shell to a Web Server.This issue affects Appointment: from n/a through \u003c= 3.5.5.",
"id": "GHSA-5rf8-xhgp-9mg9",
"modified": "2026-04-14T15:30:29Z",
"published": "2026-04-08T09:31:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-39620"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Theme/appointment/vulnerability/wordpress-appointment-theme-3-5-5-cross-site-request-forgery-csrf-to-arbitrary-file-upload-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:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-5RFM-Q8CG-PQ99
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-01-03 00:30 – Updated: 2023-01-09 21:30The iubenda | All-in-one Compliance for GDPR / CCPA Cookie Consent + more WordPress plugin before 3.3.3 does does not have authorisation and CSRF in an AJAX action, and does not ensure that the options to be updated belong to the plugin as long as they are arrays. As a result, any authenticated users, such as subscriber can grant themselves any privileges, such as edit_plugins etc
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-3911"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-269",
"CWE-352",
"CWE-863"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-01-02T22:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The iubenda | All-in-one Compliance for GDPR / CCPA Cookie Consent + more WordPress plugin before 3.3.3 does does not have authorisation and CSRF in an AJAX action, and does not ensure that the options to be updated belong to the plugin as long as they are arrays. As a result, any authenticated users, such as subscriber can grant themselves any privileges, such as edit_plugins etc",
"id": "GHSA-5rfm-q8cg-pq99",
"modified": "2023-01-09T21:30:22Z",
"published": "2023-01-03T00:30:44Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-3911"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/c47fdca8-74ac-48a4-9780-556927fb4e52"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-5RH5-CR8C-QG7H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:31 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:31A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Software for Cisco IP Phone 8800 Series could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to conduct a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attack. The vulnerability is due to insufficient CSRF protections for the web-based management interface of an affected device. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by persuading an authenticated user of the interface to follow a crafted link. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to perform arbitrary actions on a targeted device via a web browser and with the privileges of the user. This vulnerability affects Cisco IP Phone 8800 Series products running a SIP Software release prior to 11.0(5) for Wireless IP Phone 8821 and 8821-EX; and 12.5(1)SR1 for the IP Conference Phone 8832 and the rest of the IP Phone 8800 Series. Cisco IP Conference Phone 8831 is not affected.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-1764"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-03-22T20:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in the web-based management interface of Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Software for Cisco IP Phone 8800 Series could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to conduct a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attack. The vulnerability is due to insufficient CSRF protections for the web-based management interface of an affected device. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by persuading an authenticated user of the interface to follow a crafted link. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to perform arbitrary actions on a targeted device via a web browser and with the privileges of the user. This vulnerability affects Cisco IP Phone 8800 Series products running a SIP Software release prior to 11.0(5) for Wireless IP Phone 8821 and 8821-EX; and 12.5(1)SR1 for the IP Conference Phone 8832 and the rest of the IP Phone 8800 Series. Cisco IP Conference Phone 8831 is not affected.",
"id": "GHSA-5rh5-cr8c-qg7h",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:31:20Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:31:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-1764"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20190320-ip-phone-csrf"
}
],
"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-5RH5-Q22H-69WJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-26 18:31 – Updated: 2026-01-28 21:31Shenzhen Tenda W30E V2 firmware versions up to and including V16.01.0.19(5037) lack cross-site request forgery (CSRF) protections on administrative endpoints, including those used to change administrator account credentials. As a result, an attacker can craft malicious requests that, when triggered by an authenticated user’s browser, modify administrative passwords and other configuration settings.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-24432"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-26T18:16:40Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Shenzhen Tenda W30E V2 firmware versions up to and including V16.01.0.19(5037) lack cross-site request forgery (CSRF) protections on administrative endpoints, including those used to change administrator account credentials. As a result, an attacker can craft malicious requests that, when triggered by an authenticated user\u2019s browser, modify administrative passwords and other configuration settings.",
"id": "GHSA-5rh5-q22h-69wj",
"modified": "2026-01-28T21:31:19Z",
"published": "2026-01-26T18:31:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-24432"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.tendacn.com/product/W30E"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/tenda-w30e-v2-missing-csrf-protections-for-administrative-actions"
}
],
"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-5RJ5-GFMR-HRC3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-21 21:30 – Updated: 2026-06-24 18:19Concrete CMS 9.5.0 and below does not validate a CSRF token before processing requests to /dashboard/extend/update/prepare_remote_upgrade/. An attacker who controls the remote package returned for a known marketplace item ID can overwrite the package PHP on disk and force its upgrade() method to execute in a single browser navigation. This results in remote code execution as the web server user. In order to be vulnerable, the victim must be passing canInstallPackages, victim site must be connected to the Concrete marketplace; and the attacker controls the package returned for a marketplace item ID already installed on the victim site. The Concrete CMS security team thanks @maru1009 for reporting this issue.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "concrete5/concrete5"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "9.5.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-8426"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-24T18:19:48Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-05-21T21:16:34Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Concrete CMS 9.5.0 and below does not validate a CSRF token before processing requests to /dashboard/extend/update/prepare_remote_upgrade/\u003cremoteMPID\u003e. An attacker who controls the remote package returned for a known marketplace item ID can overwrite the package PHP on disk and force its upgrade() method to execute in a single browser navigation. This results in remote code execution as the web server user.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0In order to be vulnerable, the victim must be passing canInstallPackages,\u00a0victim site must be connected to the Concrete marketplace; and the attacker controls the package returned for a marketplace item ID already installed on the victim site.\u00a0The Concrete CMS security team thanks @maru1009\u00a0for reporting this issue.",
"id": "GHSA-5rj5-gfmr-hrc3",
"modified": "2026-06-24T18:19:48Z",
"published": "2026-05-21T21:30:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-8426"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://documentation.concretecms.org/9-x/developers/introduction/version-history/951-release-notes"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/concretecms/concretecms"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Concrete CMS does not validate a CSRF token before processing requests to `/dashboard/extend/update/prepare_remote_upgrade/\u003cremoteMPID\u003e`"
}
GHSA-5RMM-4J55-92MF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-24 09:30 – Updated: 2026-04-08 21:33The SurveyJS: Drag & Drop WordPress Form Builder to create, style and embed multiple forms of any complexity plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.12.20. This is due to missing nonce verification on the 'SurveyJS_RenameSurvey' AJAX action. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to rename surveys via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-13194"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-24T09:15:51Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The SurveyJS: Drag \u0026 Drop WordPress Form Builder to create, style and embed multiple forms of any complexity plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.12.20. This is due to missing nonce verification on the \u0027SurveyJS_RenameSurvey\u0027 AJAX action. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to rename surveys via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.",
"id": "GHSA-5rmm-4j55-92mf",
"modified": "2026-04-08T21:33:10Z",
"published": "2026-01-24T09:30:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-13194"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/surveyjs/tags/1.12.20/ajax_handlers/rename_survey.php#L12"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3446910"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/ab88f0cf-971f-43e1-b6b7-4eb55188ecc8?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-5RQF-6WFJ-R66H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-10-16 12:33 – Updated: 2024-04-04 08:40Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Alexey Golubnichenko AGP Font Awesome Collection plugin <= 3.2.4 versions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-45749"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-10-16T11:15:44Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Alexey Golubnichenko AGP Font Awesome Collection plugin \u003c=\u00a03.2.4 versions.",
"id": "GHSA-5rqf-6wfj-r66h",
"modified": "2024-04-04T08:40:46Z",
"published": "2023-10-16T12:33:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-45749"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/agp-font-awesome-collection/wordpress-agp-font-awesome-collection-plugin-3-2-4-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-5RQV-HH24-R74M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-11-04 12:00 – Updated: 2022-11-04 19:01Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Keywordrush Content Egg plugin <= 5.4.0 on WordPress.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-25952"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-11-03T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Keywordrush Content Egg plugin \u003c= 5.4.0 on WordPress.",
"id": "GHSA-5rqv-hh24-r74m",
"modified": "2022-11-04T19:01:16Z",
"published": "2022-11-04T12:00:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-25952"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/content-egg/wordpress-content-egg-plugin-5-4-0-cross-site-request-forgery-csrf-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wordpress.org/plugins/content-egg/#developers"
}
],
"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-5RRJ-H9G6-5MXJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 04:19 – Updated: 2022-05-17 04:19Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in the O2Tweet plugin 0.0.4 and earlier for WordPress allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that conduct cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks via the (1) o2t_username or (2) o2t_tags parameter to wp-admin/options-general.php.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2014-9338"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2014-12-19T15:59:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in the O2Tweet plugin 0.0.4 and earlier for WordPress allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that conduct cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks via the (1) o2t_username or (2) o2t_tags parameter to wp-admin/options-general.php.",
"id": "GHSA-5rrj-h9g6-5mxj",
"modified": "2022-05-17T04:19:23Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T04:19:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2014-9338"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/129578/WordPress-O2Tweet-0.0.4-CSRF-XSS.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-5RRQ-43P5-49Q6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-07-06 21:15 – Updated: 2024-04-04 05:46Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in WordPress Performance Team Performance Lab plugin <= 2.2.0 versions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-47174"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-05-25T13:15:09Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in WordPress Performance Team Performance Lab plugin \u003c=\u00a02.2.0 versions.",
"id": "GHSA-5rrq-43p5-49q6",
"modified": "2024-04-04T05:46:51Z",
"published": "2023-07-06T21:15:05Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-47174"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/performance-lab/wordpress-performance-lab-plugin-2-2-0-cross-site-request-forgery-csrf?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation MIT-4
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.