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
15030 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-79PW-7M53-3XMF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:47 – Updated: 2024-04-04 00:51Multi modules of MailSherlock MSR35 and MSR45 lead to a CSRF vulnerability. It allows attacker to add malicious email sources into whitelist via user/save_list.php?ACSION=&type=email&category=white&locate=big5&cmd=add&new=hacker@socialengineering.com&new_memo=&add=%E6%96%B0%E5%A2%9E without any authorizes.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-9882"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-06-03T18:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Multi modules of MailSherlock MSR35 and MSR45 lead to a CSRF vulnerability. It allows attacker to add malicious email sources into whitelist via user/save_list.php?ACSION=\u0026type=email\u0026category=white\u0026locate=big5\u0026cmd=add\u0026new=hacker@socialengineering.com\u0026new_memo=\u0026add=%E6%96%B0%E5%A2%9E without any authorizes.",
"id": "GHSA-79pw-7m53-3xmf",
"modified": "2024-04-04T00:51:12Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:47:08Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-9882"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tvn.twcert.org.tw/taiwanvn/TVN-201904002"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://surl.twcert.org.tw/MtWeJ"
}
],
"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-79Q7-WJ69-PJQG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-01-22 18:30 – Updated: 2026-01-27 21:31Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in winkm89 teachPress teachpress allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects teachPress: from n/a through <= 9.0.12.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-22483"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-01-22T17:16:36Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in winkm89 teachPress teachpress allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects teachPress: from n/a through \u003c= 9.0.12.",
"id": "GHSA-79q7-wj69-pjqg",
"modified": "2026-01-27T21:31:43Z",
"published": "2026-01-22T18:30:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-22483"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/teachpress/vulnerability/wordpress-teachpress-plugin-9-0-12-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-79QC-M83G-G4J5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-02-02 00:01 – Updated: 2024-10-10 18:31The Link Library WordPress plugin before 7.2.8 does not have CSRF check when resetting library settings, allowing attackers to make a logged in admin reset arbitrary settings via a CSRF attack
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-25092"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-02-01T13:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Link Library WordPress plugin before 7.2.8 does not have CSRF check when resetting library settings, allowing attackers to make a logged in admin reset arbitrary settings via a CSRF attack",
"id": "GHSA-79qc-m83g-g4j5",
"modified": "2024-10-10T18:31:06Z",
"published": "2022-02-02T00:01:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-25092"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/1cd30913-67c7-46c3-a2de-dcca0c332323"
}
],
"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-79RW-5J65-C4MG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 00:51 – Updated: 2022-05-17 00:51Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in HP System Management Homepage (SMH) before 7.5.0 allows remote authenticated users to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims via unknown vectors.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2015-2134"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2015-07-21T19:59:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in HP System Management Homepage (SMH) before 7.5.0 allows remote authenticated users to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims via unknown vectors.",
"id": "GHSA-79rw-5j65-c4mg",
"modified": "2022-05-17T00:51:50Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T00:51:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2015-2134"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://h20564.www2.hp.com/portal/site/hpsc/public/kb/docDisplay?docId=emr_na-c04746490"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://marc.info/?l=bugtraq\u0026m=144050155601375\u0026w=2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/75961"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1033014"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-79V2-383J-7F2X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-22 21:30 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:36Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Aurélien LWS LWS Affiliation allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects LWS Affiliation: from n/a through 2.3.6.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-57934"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-22T19:15:50Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Aur\u00e9lien LWS LWS Affiliation allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects LWS Affiliation: from n/a through 2.3.6.",
"id": "GHSA-79v2-383j-7f2x",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:36:10Z",
"published": "2025-09-22T21:30:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-57934"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/lws-affiliation/vulnerability/wordpress-lws-affiliation-plugin-2-3-6-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-79VX-7WHJ-RVVR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-02 03:53 – Updated: 2022-05-02 03:53Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in Moodle 1.8 before 1.8.11 and 1.9 before 1.9.7 allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims via unknown vectors.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2009-4297"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2009-12-16T01:30:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in Moodle 1.8 before 1.8.11 and 1.9 before 1.9.7 allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims via unknown vectors.",
"id": "GHSA-79vx-7whj-rvvr",
"modified": "2022-05-02T03:53:19Z",
"published": "2022-05-02T03:53:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2009-4297"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-announce/2009-December/msg00704.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-announce/2009-December/msg00730.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-package-announce/2009-December/msg00751.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://docs.moodle.org/en/Moodle_1.8.11_release_notes"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://docs.moodle.org/en/Moodle_1.9.7_release_notes"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=139100"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/37614"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/37244"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2009/3455"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-79WM-HH6X-P8F7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-29 12:31 – Updated: 2026-09-29 12:31Quick.Cart is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in admin config panel. Malicious attacker can craft special website, which when visited by the admin, will automatically send a POST request that changes admin's login and password. This software does implement simple protection against this type of attack, but it is easily bypassed by manipulating the referer header. All forms available in this software are potentially vulnerable.
This issue was fixed in a patch to version 6.7 published on 09.11.2026, deployments without this patch are still vulnerable
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-41875"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-29T12:17:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Quick.Cart is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in admin config panel. Malicious attacker can craft special website, which when visited by the admin, will automatically send a POST request that changes admin\u0027s login and password.\nThis software does implement simple protection against this type of attack, but it is easily bypassed by manipulating the referer header. All forms available in this software are potentially vulnerable.\n\nThis issue was fixed in a patch to version 6.7 published on 09.11.2026, deployments without this patch are still vulnerable",
"id": "GHSA-79wm-hh6x-p8f7",
"modified": "2026-09-29T12:31:31Z",
"published": "2026-09-29T12:31:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-41875"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://cert.pl/posts/2026/09/CVE-2026-41875"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://opensolution.org/shopping-cart-quick-cart.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC: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-79WM-X847-7CVG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-03 19:50 – Updated: 2026-09-03 19:50Summary
npx claude-code-templates --studio launches "Claude Code Studio", an Express HTTP server (cli-tool/src/sandbox-server.js, default port 3444) that binds to all interfaces (0.0.0.0), sets Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *, and requires no authentication. Two POST endpoints pass attacker-controlled request-body fields into child_process.spawn(..., { shell: true }). Because shell: true makes Node join the argv array into a single sh -c string, the fields are parsed by the shell and metacharacters execute. Any unauthenticated attacker who can reach the port — a malicious web page the developer visits, or anyone on the same LAN — can execute arbitrary OS commands on the developer's machine.
Details
In cli-tool/src/sandbox-server.js:
app.listen(PORT, ...)is called with no host argument, so the server listens on0.0.0.0/::(reachable from the LAN, not just localhost).- The CORS middleware sends
Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *and answers the preflightOPTIONSfor any origin, so a browser will deliver cross-origin POSTs to it. - There is no authentication on any endpoint.
The vulnerable sinks:
-
POST /api/execute— thepromptbody field flows intoexecuteLocalTask(): ```js const child = spawn('claude', [finalPrompt], { /* ... */ shell: true }); The only validation on prompt is a length check (>= 10 chars). With shell: true, finalPrompt is interpreted by the shell. -
POST /api/install-agent — the agentName body field: const child = spawn('npx', ['claude-code-templates@latest', '--agent', agentName, '--yes'], { /* ... */ shell: true });
- agentName is used unvalidated. (The same unsafe pattern is also reachable through /api/execute's agent field via checkAndInstallAgent().)
Root cause: spawn(cmd, argsArray, { shell: true }) does not keep argsArray as separate argv entries — Node builds cmd + ' ' + argsArray.join(' ') and runs it via sh -c, so every element is subject to shell parsing.
PoC
Victim
npx claude-code-templates --studio # server on 0.0.0.0:3444
Attacker (another LAN host, or a malicious web page fetch(), or locally)
curl -s -X POST http://127.0.0.1:3444/api/execute \ -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \ --data '{"prompt":"aaaaaaaaaa; touch /tmp/CCT_RCE_PROOF","mode":"local"}'
curl -s -X POST http://127.0.0.1:3444/api/install-agent \ -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \ --data '{"agentName":"x; touch /tmp/CCT_AGENT_PROOF #"}'
ls -la /tmp/CCT_RCE_PROOF /tmp/CCT_AGENT_PROOF # both created => injected commands ran The aaaaaaaaaa padding satisfies the 10-char minimum, then ; (or $(...), or backticks) starts the injected command. claude/npx do not even need to be installed — the injected segment runs regardless.
Confirmed at runtime on v1.28.13 (Node 22, Linux): both marker files were created, the server listened on *:3444, and an OPTIONS preflight from Origin: https://evil.example returned 200 with Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *.
Impact
Unauthenticated remote code execution (CWE-78) on any machine running --studio. Two reachability paths: - Drive-by: a developer running --studio who visits an attacker-controlled web page — the page's cross-origin fetch() (Content-Type application/json) passes the wildcard CORS preflight and delivers the POST, achieving RCE with no other interaction. - LAN: because the server binds 0.0.0.0, anyone on the same network (office, co-working space, public Wi-Fi) can hit port 3444 directly.
Impact is full compromise of the developer's user account (arbitrary command execution with the developer's privileges): source code, SSH keys, cloud credentials, and .env secrets.
Suggested fix
- Remove shell: true from all three spawns so arguments stay discrete argv entries (kills the injection).
- Validate agentName against a strict allowlist (^[A-Za-z0-9._/-]+$).
- Bind to loopback only (app.listen(PORT, '127.0.0.1', ...)).
- Replace the wildcard CORS with a same-origin allowlist and reject other origins.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.29.2"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "claude-code-templates"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.29.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-73222"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-306",
"CWE-352",
"CWE-78"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-09-03T19:50:47Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-11T19:18:51Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\n`npx claude-code-templates --studio` launches \"Claude Code Studio\", an Express HTTP server (`cli-tool/src/sandbox-server.js`, default port 3444) that binds to **all interfaces** (`0.0.0.0`), sets `Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *`, and requires **no authentication**. Two POST endpoints pass attacker-controlled request-body fields into `child_process.spawn(..., { shell: true })`. Because `shell: true` makes Node join the argv array into a single `sh -c` string, the fields are parsed by the shell and metacharacters execute. Any unauthenticated attacker who can reach the port \u2014 a malicious web page the developer visits, or anyone on the same LAN \u2014 can execute arbitrary OS commands on the developer\u0027s machine.\n\n### Details\nIn `cli-tool/src/sandbox-server.js`:\n\n- `app.listen(PORT, ...)` is called with no host argument, so the server listens on `0.0.0.0` / `::` (reachable from the LAN, not just localhost).\n- The CORS middleware sends `Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *` and answers the preflight `OPTIONS` for any origin, so a browser will deliver cross-origin POSTs to it.\n- There is no authentication on any endpoint.\n\nThe vulnerable sinks:\n\n1. `POST /api/execute` \u2014 the `prompt` body field flows into `executeLocalTask()`:\n ```js\n const child = spawn(\u0027claude\u0027, [finalPrompt], { /* ... */ shell: true });\n The only validation on prompt is a length check (\u003e= 10 chars). With shell: true, finalPrompt is interpreted by the shell.\n\n2. POST /api/install-agent \u2014 the agentName body field:\nconst child = spawn(\u0027npx\u0027, [\u0027claude-code-templates@latest\u0027, \u0027--agent\u0027, agentName, \u0027--yes\u0027], { /* ... */ shell: true });\n2. agentName is used unvalidated. (The same unsafe pattern is also reachable through /api/execute\u0027s agent field via checkAndInstallAgent().)\n\nRoot cause: spawn(cmd, argsArray, { shell: true }) does not keep argsArray as separate argv entries \u2014 Node builds cmd + \u0027 \u0027 + argsArray.join(\u0027 \u0027) and runs it via sh -c, so every element is subject to shell parsing.\n\nPoC\n\n# Victim\nnpx claude-code-templates --studio # server on 0.0.0.0:3444\n\n# Attacker (another LAN host, or a malicious web page fetch(), or locally)\ncurl -s -X POST http://127.0.0.1:3444/api/execute \\\n -H \u0027Content-Type: application/json\u0027 \\\n --data \u0027{\"prompt\":\"aaaaaaaaaa; touch /tmp/CCT_RCE_PROOF\",\"mode\":\"local\"}\u0027\n\ncurl -s -X POST http://127.0.0.1:3444/api/install-agent \\\n -H \u0027Content-Type: application/json\u0027 \\\n --data \u0027{\"agentName\":\"x; touch /tmp/CCT_AGENT_PROOF #\"}\u0027\n\nls -la /tmp/CCT_RCE_PROOF /tmp/CCT_AGENT_PROOF # both created =\u003e injected commands ran\nThe aaaaaaaaaa padding satisfies the 10-char minimum, then ; (or $(...), or backticks) starts the injected command. claude/npx do not even need to be installed \u2014 the injected segment runs regardless.\n\nConfirmed at runtime on v1.28.13 (Node 22, Linux): both marker files were created, the server listened on *:3444, and an OPTIONS preflight from Origin: https://evil.example returned 200 with Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *.\n\nImpact\n\nUnauthenticated remote code execution (CWE-78) on any machine running --studio. Two reachability paths:\n- Drive-by: a developer running --studio who visits an attacker-controlled web page \u2014 the page\u0027s cross-origin fetch() (Content-Type application/json) passes the wildcard CORS preflight and delivers the POST, achieving RCE with no other interaction.\n- LAN: because the server binds 0.0.0.0, anyone on the same network (office, co-working space, public Wi-Fi) can hit port 3444 directly.\n\nImpact is full compromise of the developer\u0027s user account (arbitrary command execution with the developer\u0027s privileges): source code, SSH keys, cloud credentials, and .env secrets.\n\nSuggested fix\n\n- Remove shell: true from all three spawns so arguments stay discrete argv entries (kills the injection).\n- Validate agentName against a strict allowlist (^[A-Za-z0-9._/-]+$).\n- Bind to loopback only (app.listen(PORT, \u0027127.0.0.1\u0027, ...)).\n- Replace the wildcard CORS with a same-origin allowlist and reject other origins.",
"id": "GHSA-79wm-x847-7cvg",
"modified": "2026-09-03T19:50:47Z",
"published": "2026-09-03T19:50:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/davila7/claude-code-templates/security/advisories/GHSA-79wm-x847-7cvg"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-73222"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/davila7/claude-code-templates/commit/bc4618b07232633c1c0aac12a43e436268d31783"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/davila7/claude-code-templates"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/davila7/claude-code-templates/blob/main/CHANGELOG.md"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "Claude Code Templates: Unauthenticated OS command injection (RCE) in Claude Code Studio server (--studio)"
}
GHSA-7C3J-FPRF-2XQW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 05:15 – Updated: 2022-05-17 05:15Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the Web Interface in the Endpoint Protection Manager in Symantec Endpoint Protection (SEP) 11.0.600x through 11.0.6300 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that create administrative accounts.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2011-0551"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2011-08-15T19:55:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the Web Interface in the Endpoint Protection Manager in Symantec Endpoint Protection (SEP) 11.0.600x through 11.0.6300 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that create administrative accounts.",
"id": "GHSA-7c3j-fprf-2xqw",
"modified": "2022-05-17T05:15:49Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T05:15:49Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2011-0551"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/43662"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://securitytracker.com/id?1025919"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.osvdb.org/74467"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/49101"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.symantec.com/security_response/securityupdates/detail.jsp?fid=security_advisory\u0026pvid=security_advisory\u0026year=2011\u0026suid=20110810_00"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-7C3V-2JJV-HQ3C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-18 00:00 – Updated: 2022-12-02 20:09A cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Jenkins Autocomplete Parameter Plugin 1.1 and earlier allows attackers to execute arbitrary code without sandbox protection if the victim is an administrator.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.jenkins-ci.plugins:autocomplete-parameter"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "1.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-30969"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-06-01T21:18:40Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-05-17T15:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Jenkins Autocomplete Parameter Plugin 1.1 and earlier allows attackers to execute arbitrary code without sandbox protection if the victim is an administrator.",
"id": "GHSA-7c3v-2jjv-hq3c",
"modified": "2022-12-02T20:09:39Z",
"published": "2022-05-18T00:00:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-30969"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/autocomplete-parameter-plugin"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.jenkins.io/security/advisory/2022-05-17/#SECURITY-2322"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "Cross-Site Request Forgery in Jenkins Autocomplete Parameter Plugin"
}
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.