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
15028 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-75J5-9V4M-C666
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-11 12:30 – Updated: 2026-08-11 12:30Affected versions of MISP cti-transmute expose several state-changing account operations as GET requests:
-
/account/follow
-
/account/delete_notification
-
/account/mark_notification_read
-
/account/mark_all_read
These endpoints require authentication, but before the fix they could be invoked with simple GET requests. That makes them susceptible to cross-site request forgery because a third-party site can induce the victim’s browser to send authenticated GET requests automatically.
The patch converts the actions to POST or DELETE and updates the frontend to include an X-CSRFToken header, providing explicit CSRF protection for those state-changing operations.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-73162"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-11T10:17:13Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Affected versions of MISP cti-transmute expose several state-changing account operations as GET requests:\n\n\n\n * \n/account/follow\n\n\n * \n/account/delete_notification\n\n\n * \n/account/mark_notification_read\n\n\n * \n/account/mark_all_read\n\n\n\n\n\nThese endpoints require authentication, but before the fix they could be invoked with simple GET requests. That makes them susceptible to cross-site request forgery because a third-party site can induce the victim\u2019s browser to send authenticated GET requests automatically.\n\n\nThe patch converts the actions to POST or DELETE and updates the frontend to include an X-CSRFToken header, providing explicit CSRF protection for those state-changing operations.",
"id": "GHSA-75j5-9v4m-c666",
"modified": "2026-08-11T12:30:22Z",
"published": "2026-08-11T12:30:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-73162"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/MISP/cti-transmute/commit/c352c2329e48ccc33a2b96d5353450cfbf7e89ec"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"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: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-75JH-C69W-J2R8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 04:07 – Updated: 2022-05-17 04:07Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the OSF module 7.x-3.x before 7.x-3.1 for Drupal, when the OSF Import module is enabled, allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that create new OSF datasets via unspecified vectors.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2015-7233"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2015-09-17T16:59:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the OSF module 7.x-3.x before 7.x-3.1 for Drupal, when the OSF Import module is enabled, allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that create new OSF datasets via unspecified vectors.",
"id": "GHSA-75jh-c69w-j2r8",
"modified": "2022-05-17T04:07:21Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T04:07:21Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2015-7233"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.drupal.org/node/2537120"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.drupal.org/node/2537860"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-75JW-3Q36-9HVJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-02 00:03 – Updated: 2025-04-09 03:57Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the sign-out page in Vanilla 1.1.4 and earlier allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests that trigger a logout via a SignOutNow action to people.php.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2008-3760"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2008-08-21T17:41:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the sign-out page in Vanilla 1.1.4 and earlier allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests that trigger a logout via a SignOutNow action to people.php.",
"id": "GHSA-75jw-3q36-9hvj",
"modified": "2025-04-09T03:57:45Z",
"published": "2022-05-02T00:03:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2008-3760"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/44558"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/44748"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://lussumo.com/bugs/discussion/88/csrf-attack-hole"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://lussumo.com/community/discussion/8463/possible-security-flaw/#Comment_88511"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://lussumo.com/community/discussion/8559/vanilla-115-release-candidate-1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://lussumo.com/docs/doku.php?id=vanilla:releasenotes"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/31527"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-75MJ-58G7-9G7G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:47 – Updated: 2024-03-03 03:30Multilaser Router AC1200 V02.03.01.45_pt contains a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability. An attacker can enable remote access, change passwords, and perform other actions through misconfigured requests, entries, and headers.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-31152"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-04-14T14:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Multilaser Router AC1200 V02.03.01.45_pt contains a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability. An attacker can enable remote access, change passwords, and perform other actions through misconfigured requests, entries, and headers.",
"id": "GHSA-75mj-58g7-9g7g",
"modified": "2024-03-03T03:30:23Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:47:39Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-31152"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN3DVrcu6Eg"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/162258/Multilaser-Router-RE018-AC1200-Cross-Site-Request-Forgery.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2024/Mar/1"
}
],
"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-75MX-R657-QR4P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-10-09 12:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 08:25Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Michael Tran Table of Contents Plus plugin <= 2302 versions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-44473"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-10-09T11:15:10Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Michael Tran Table of Contents Plus plugin \u003c=\u00a02302 versions.",
"id": "GHSA-75mx-r657-qr4p",
"modified": "2024-04-04T08:25:55Z",
"published": "2023-10-09T12:30:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-44473"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/table-of-contents-plus/wordpress-table-of-contents-plus-plugin-2302-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-75R7-C6P8-HX2J
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-02-11 00:01 – Updated: 2022-02-11 00:01phoronix-test-suite is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-0197"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-01-13T01:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "phoronix-test-suite is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)",
"id": "GHSA-75r7-c6p8-hx2j",
"modified": "2022-02-11T00:01:40Z",
"published": "2022-02-11T00:01:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-0197"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/phoronix-test-suite/phoronix-test-suite/commit/4f18296a1862fe54a4c58701a1f5ec6bd62a4d94"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://huntr.dev/bounties/5abb7915-32f4-4fb1-afa7-bb6d8c4c5ad2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/57V2CSFU5MKWKL6RJUKMXSD4PCRFTMMQ"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/BU7E6OOZCXS3ZWHOQ2AR7MKM56IN2R6R"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-75RP-PQQ4-FPV7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-28 12:30 – Updated: 2026-02-10 21:31Cross-Site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Sync Breeze Enterprise Server v10.4.18 and Disk Pulse Enterprise v10.4.18. An authenticated user could cause another user to perform unwanted actions within the application they are logged into. This vulnerability is possible due to the lack of proper CSRF token implementation. Among other things, it is possible, using a POST request to delete commands individually via '/delete_command?sid=', using the 'cid' parameter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-59892"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-28T12:15:50Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Cross-Site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Sync Breeze Enterprise Server v10.4.18 and Disk Pulse Enterprise v10.4.18. An authenticated user could cause another user to perform unwanted actions within the application they are logged into. This vulnerability is possible due to the lack of proper CSRF token implementation. Among other things, it is possible, using a POST request to\u00a0delete commands individually via \u0027/delete_command?sid=\u0027, using the \u0027cid\u0027 parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-75rp-pqq4-fpv7",
"modified": "2026-02-10T21:31:27Z",
"published": "2026-01-28T12:30:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-59892"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.incibe.es/en/incibe-cert/notices/aviso/multiple-vulnerabilities-flexense-products"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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-75RV-9HJ4-6WWC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-07-01 06:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 05:20The Menu Swapper plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 1.1.0.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the mswp_save_meta() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to save meta data via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-36746"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-07-01T06:15:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Menu Swapper plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 1.1.0.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the mswp_save_meta() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to save meta data via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.",
"id": "GHSA-75rv-9hj4-6wwc",
"modified": "2024-04-04T05:20:05Z",
"published": "2023-07-01T06:30:16Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-36746"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.nintechnet.com/25-wordpress-plugins-vulnerable-to-csrf-attacks"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.nintechnet.com/more-wordpress-plugins-and-themes-vulnerable-to-csrf-attacks"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.nintechnet.com/multiple-wordpress-plugins-fixed-csrf-vulnerabilities-part-1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.nintechnet.com/multiple-wordpress-plugins-fixed-csrf-vulnerabilities-part-2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.nintechnet.com/multiple-wordpress-plugins-fixed-csrf-vulnerabilities-part-3"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.nintechnet.com/multiple-wordpress-plugins-fixed-csrf-vulnerabilities-part-4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.nintechnet.com/multiple-wordpress-plugins-fixed-csrf-vulnerabilities-part-5"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail=\u0026reponame=\u0026old=2368729%40menu-swapper\u0026new=2368729%40menu-swapper\u0026sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail="
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/49a04155-9fa8-45e0-b80b-3836d5271fa7?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-75W3-GMQX-993Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-08 20:27 – Updated: 2026-07-08 20:27Summary
Waku's RSC request dispatcher invokes server actions without validating the request's Origin (or Sec-Fetch-Site) header. A cross-origin web attacker can therefore cause a victim browser to issue an authenticated POST to a registered server action endpoint using a CORS-safelisted content type (text/plain), which does not trigger a preflight. Any state-mutating server action that the application exposes via 'use server' can be invoked with the victim's cookies attached. A working proof-of-concept demonstrates the vulnerability against waku 1.0.0-beta.0 dev server: a cross-origin POST with Content-Type: text/plain invokes a registered 'use server' action and returns HTTP 200 with an RSC stream response. The same defect affects the progressive-enhancement (no-JavaScript) server action path: a cross-origin HTML form auto-submitting multipart/form-data reaches the dispatch through a second unguarded branch of the request handler, dynamically confirmed on 2026-05-17. Both branches were confirmed exploitable from opaque-origin contexts (sandboxed iframes, file:// navigation, browser extension pages), which send Origin: null — a value no Origin guard exists to reject. This is the same vulnerability class previously disclosed for Next.js Server Actions (GHSA-mq59-m269-xvcx); waku's implementation is broader in that no Origin check exists at all in the default request handler.
Root cause
In packages/waku/src/lib/utils/request.ts:
// line 29
if (pathname.startsWith(rscPathPrefix)) {
rscPath = decodeRscPath(pathname.slice(rscPathPrefix.length));
const actionId = decodeFuncId(rscPath);
if (actionId) {
const body = await getActionBody(req);
const args = await decodeReply(body, { temporaryReferences });
const action = await loadServerAction(actionId);
// ...action is invoked with attacker-supplied args
}
}
The sibling else if (req.method === 'POST') branch (line 61) does enforce a method check, but only for non-RSC paths. The RSC dispatch branch has no equivalent guard. For comparison, frameworks in the same category (Next.js, Remix) compare the request's Origin header against the configured host before invoking a server action.
Trigger (one-line summary)
A cross-origin POST with Content-Type: text/plain to /<rscBase>/<encoded-action-path> reaches loadServerAction and invokes a registered 'use server' action with the victim's browser-attached cookies.
Affected entry surfaces
- All HTTP adapters exposed by waku (
packages/waku/src/adapters/node.ts,cloudflare.ts,vercel.ts,edge.ts) — each chains through the samerequest.ts:getInputdispatcher. - Any server action declared with
'use server'and reachable from the Vite module graph (i.e., normal application code).
Suggested fix outline
Add an Origin (and ideally Sec-Fetch-Site) validation step in the RSC dispatch branch of getInput, gated against the configured base URL host, with an opt-in allowedOrigins configuration option for legitimate cross-origin scenarios. Exact patch sketches will be provided in the follow-up comment.
Disclosure
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Reporter | j0hndo (dohyun4466@gmail.com) |
| Discovery date | 2026-05-15 |
| Embargo | 90 days from acknowledgement (operator open to extension on request) |
| Comparable precedent | Next.js GHSA-mq59-m269-xvcx ("null origin can bypass Server Actions CSRF checks"), CVSS 5.3, fixed Next.js 16.1.7 |
| References | OWASP CSRF cheat sheet; Fetch spec § CORS-safelisted request-header (text/plain). |
Workarounds (publish-safe)
Until a framework-level fix is released, operators can mitigate by placing an Origin-validating reverse proxy or middleware in front of waku that rejects requests whose Origin header does not match the application's host on POST requests to the configured rscBase prefix. Note that Vite's server.allowedHosts guard (which rejects unrecognized Host headers with HTTP 403) applies only to waku dev; production deployments using waku build && waku start do not have an equivalent guard and are fully exposed without an external mitigation layer.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.0.0-beta.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "waku"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.0.0-beta.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-49455"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-07-08T20:27:11Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nWaku\u0027s RSC request dispatcher invokes server actions without validating the request\u0027s `Origin` (or `Sec-Fetch-Site`) header. A cross-origin web attacker can therefore cause a victim browser to issue an authenticated `POST` to a registered server action endpoint using a CORS-safelisted content type (`text/plain`), which does not trigger a preflight. Any state-mutating server action that the application exposes via `\u0027use server\u0027` can be invoked with the victim\u0027s cookies attached. A working proof-of-concept demonstrates the vulnerability against waku 1.0.0-beta.0 dev server: a cross-origin POST with `Content-Type: text/plain` invokes a registered `\u0027use server\u0027` action and returns HTTP 200 with an RSC stream response. The same defect affects the progressive-enhancement (no-JavaScript) server action path: a cross-origin HTML form auto-submitting `multipart/form-data` reaches the dispatch through a second unguarded branch of the request handler, dynamically confirmed on 2026-05-17. Both branches were confirmed exploitable from opaque-origin contexts (sandboxed iframes, `file://` navigation, browser extension pages), which send `Origin: null` \u2014 a value no Origin guard exists to reject. This is the same vulnerability class previously disclosed for Next.js Server Actions (GHSA-mq59-m269-xvcx); waku\u0027s implementation is broader in that no Origin check exists at all in the default request handler.\n\n\n## Root cause\n\nIn `packages/waku/src/lib/utils/request.ts`:\n\n```ts\n// line 29\nif (pathname.startsWith(rscPathPrefix)) {\n rscPath = decodeRscPath(pathname.slice(rscPathPrefix.length));\n const actionId = decodeFuncId(rscPath);\n if (actionId) {\n const body = await getActionBody(req);\n const args = await decodeReply(body, { temporaryReferences });\n const action = await loadServerAction(actionId);\n // ...action is invoked with attacker-supplied args\n }\n}\n```\n\nThe sibling `else if (req.method === \u0027POST\u0027)` branch (line 61) does enforce a method check, but only for non-RSC paths. The RSC dispatch branch has no equivalent guard. For comparison, frameworks in the same category (Next.js, Remix) compare the request\u0027s `Origin` header against the configured host before invoking a server action.\n\n## Trigger (one-line summary)\n\nA cross-origin `POST` with `Content-Type: text/plain` to `/\u003crscBase\u003e/\u003cencoded-action-path\u003e` reaches `loadServerAction` and invokes a registered `\u0027use server\u0027` action with the victim\u0027s browser-attached cookies.\n\n## Affected entry surfaces\n\n- All HTTP adapters exposed by waku (`packages/waku/src/adapters/node.ts`, `cloudflare.ts`, `vercel.ts`, `edge.ts`) \u2014 each chains through the same `request.ts:getInput` dispatcher.\n- Any server action declared with `\u0027use server\u0027` and reachable from the Vite module graph (i.e., normal application code).\n\n## Suggested fix outline\n\nAdd an `Origin` (and ideally `Sec-Fetch-Site`) validation step in the RSC dispatch branch of `getInput`, gated against the configured base URL host, with an opt-in `allowedOrigins` configuration option for legitimate cross-origin scenarios. Exact patch sketches will be provided in the follow-up comment.\n\n## Disclosure\n\n| Field | Value |\n|---|---|\n| Reporter | j0hndo (dohyun4466@gmail.com) |\n| Discovery date | 2026-05-15 |\n| Embargo | 90 days from acknowledgement (operator open to extension on request) |\n| Comparable precedent | Next.js GHSA-mq59-m269-xvcx (\"null origin can bypass Server Actions CSRF checks\"), CVSS 5.3, fixed Next.js 16.1.7 |\n| References | OWASP CSRF cheat sheet; Fetch spec \u00a7 CORS-safelisted request-header (text/plain). |\n\n## Workarounds (publish-safe)\n\nUntil a framework-level fix is released, operators can mitigate by placing an `Origin`-validating reverse proxy or middleware in front of waku that rejects requests whose `Origin` header does not match the application\u0027s host on `POST` requests to the configured `rscBase` prefix. Note that Vite\u0027s `server.allowedHosts` guard (which rejects unrecognized `Host` headers with HTTP 403) applies only to `waku dev`; production deployments using `waku build \u0026\u0026 waku start` do not have an equivalent guard and are fully exposed without an external mitigation layer.",
"id": "GHSA-75w3-gmqx-993q",
"modified": "2026-07-08T20:27:11Z",
"published": "2026-07-08T20:27:11Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/wakujs/waku/security/advisories/GHSA-75w3-gmqx-993q"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/wakujs/waku"
}
],
"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": "Waku: Cross-Origin CSRF on RSC Server Action Dispatch"
}
GHSA-75WM-HFQ9-QGPC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:49 – Updated: 2022-10-14 12:00Linear eMerge 50P/5000P devices allow Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-7270"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-07-02T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Linear eMerge 50P/5000P devices allow Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF).",
"id": "GHSA-75wm-hfq9-qgpc",
"modified": "2022-10-14T12:00:22Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:49:18Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-7270"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://applied-risk.com/labs/advisories"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.applied-risk.com/resources/ar-2019-006"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.us-cert.gov/ics/advisories/icsa-20-184-01"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
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.