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
15025 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-7R7F-RXMV-C4J3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-11-30 00:00 – Updated: 2021-11-30 00:00The Stetic WordPress plugin is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery due to missing nonce validation via the stats_page function found in the ~/stetic.php file, which made it possible for attackers to inject arbitrary web scripts in versions up to, and including 1.0.6.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-42364"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-11-29T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The Stetic WordPress plugin is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery due to missing nonce validation via the stats_page function found in the ~/stetic.php file, which made it possible for attackers to inject arbitrary web scripts in versions up to, and including 1.0.6.",
"id": "GHSA-7r7f-rxmv-c4j3",
"modified": "2021-11-30T00:00:48Z",
"published": "2021-11-30T00:00:48Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-42364"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/stetic/trunk/stetic.php#L129"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wordfence.com/vulnerability-advisories/#CVE-2021-42364"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-7R7X-4C4Q-C4QF
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-03-13 20:52 – Updated: 2023-03-13 20:52Impact
next-auth applications using OAuth provider versions before v4.20.1 are affected.
A bad actor who can spy on the victim's network or able to social engineer the victim to click a manipulated login link could intercept and tamper with the authorization URL to log in as the victim, bypassing the CSRF protection.
As an example, an attack can happen in the following scenario.
TL;DR: The attacker steals the victim's authenticated callback by intercepting and tampering with the authorization URL created by
next-auth.
- The victim attempts to log in to the
next-authsite. For example https://next-auth-example.vercel.app/ -
next-authsets thecheckscookies according to how the OAuth provider is configured. In this case,stateandpkceare set by default for the Google Provider.
-
The attacker intercepts the returned authorization URL, strips away the OAuth check (nonce, state, pkce), and returns the URL without the check to the victim's browser. For example: From
https://accounts.google.com/o/oauth2/v2/auth/oauthchooseaccount?client_id=client_id&scope=openid%20email%20profile&response_type=code&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fnext-auth-example.vercel.app%2Fapi%2Fauth%2Fcallback%2Fgoogle&state=state&code_challenge=code_challenge&code_challenge_method=S256&service=lso&o2v=2&flowName=GeneralOAuthFlowtohttps://accounts.google.com/o/oauth2/v2/auth/oauthchooseaccount?client_id=client_id&scope=openid%20email%20profile&response_type=code&redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fnext-auth-example.vercel.app%2Fapi%2Fauth%2Fcallback%2Fgoogle&service=lso&o2v=2&flowName=GeneralOAuthFlow. Notice the parametersstate,code_challengeandcode_verifierare removed from the victim's address bar. -
The victim attempts to log in using their OAuth account.
-
The Authorization Server logs the victim in and calls back to the
next-authapi/auth/callback/:providerIdendpoint. 5.1. The attacker intercepts and logs this callback URL for later use. 5.2.next-authchecks the callback call from OAuth Authorization Server (doesn't have checks) and compares the checks with the cookies set (has checks) at step 2. This check will fail, resulting in the victim isn't logged in. However, at this step, the Authorization Server has already accepted the victim's request to log in and generated/sent acodein the URL. - The attacker now has an authorization URL with the
codethat the AS will exchange for validaccess_token/id_tokenand can log in as the victim automatically. They can open a new browser window and paste in the URL logged at step 5.1 and log in as the victim.
Patches
We patched the vulnerability in next-auth v4.20.1
To upgrade, run one of the following:
npm i next-auth@latest
yarn add next-auth@latest
pnpm add next-auth@latest
Workarounds
Upgrading to latest is the recommended way to fix this issue. However, using Advanced Initialization, developers can manually check the callback request for state, pkce, and nonce against the provider configuration, and abort the sign-in process if there is a mismatch. Check out the source code for help.
References
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "next-auth"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.20.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-27490"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-03-13T20:52:50Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-03-09T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\n`next-auth` applications using OAuth provider versions before `v4.20.1` are affected.\n\nA bad actor who can spy on the victim\u0027s network or able to social engineer the victim to click a manipulated login link could intercept and tamper with the authorization URL to **log in as the victim**, bypassing the CSRF protection.\n\nAs an example, an attack can happen in the following scenario. \n\n\u003e TL;DR: The attacker steals the victim\u0027s authenticated callback by intercepting and tampering with the authorization URL created by `next-auth`.\n\n1. The victim attempts to log in to the `next-auth` site. For example https://next-auth-example.vercel.app/\n2. `next-auth` sets the `checks` cookies according to how the OAuth provider is configured. In this case, `state` and `pkce` are set by default for the Google Provider.\n\u003cimg width=\"1971\" alt=\"Screen Shot 2023-03-03 at 09 54 26\" src=\"https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/31528554/222619750-a2062bb8-99eb-4985-a75c-d75acd3da67e.png\"\u003e\n\n3. The attacker intercepts the returned authorization URL, strips away the OAuth check (nonce, state, pkce), and returns the URL _without_ the check to the victim\u0027s browser. For example:\nFrom \n```https://accounts.google.com/o/oauth2/v2/auth/oauthchooseaccount?client_id=client_id\u0026scope=openid%20email%20profile\u0026response_type=code\u0026redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fnext-auth-example.vercel.app%2Fapi%2Fauth%2Fcallback%2Fgoogle\u0026state=state\u0026code_challenge=code_challenge\u0026code_challenge_method=S256\u0026service=lso\u0026o2v=2\u0026flowName=GeneralOAuthFlow```\nto\n```https://accounts.google.com/o/oauth2/v2/auth/oauthchooseaccount?client_id=client_id\u0026scope=openid%20email%20profile\u0026response_type=code\u0026redirect_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fnext-auth-example.vercel.app%2Fapi%2Fauth%2Fcallback%2Fgoogle\u0026service=lso\u0026o2v=2\u0026flowName=GeneralOAuthFlow```.\nNotice the parameters `state`, `code_challenge` and `code_verifier` are removed from the victim\u0027s address bar.\n\n4. The victim attempts to log in using their OAuth account.\n\n5. The Authorization Server logs the victim in and calls back to the `next-auth` `api/auth/callback/:providerId`endpoint. \n5.1. The attacker intercepts and logs this callback URL for later use.\n5.2. `next-auth` checks the callback call from OAuth Authorization Server (doesn\u0027t have checks) and compares the checks with the cookies set (has checks) at step 2. This check will fail, resulting in the victim isn\u0027t logged in. However, at this step, the Authorization Server has already accepted the victim\u0027s request to log in and generated/sent a `code` in the URL.\n6. The attacker now has an authorization URL with the `code` that the AS will exchange for valid `access_token`/`id_token` and can log in as the victim automatically. They can open a new browser window and paste in the URL logged at step 5.1 and log in as the victim.\n\n\n### Patches\nWe patched the vulnerability in `next-auth` `v4.20.1` \nTo upgrade, run one of the following:\n```\nnpm i next-auth@latest\n```\n```\nyarn add next-auth@latest\n```\n```\npnpm add next-auth@latest\n```\n\n### Workarounds\n\nUpgrading to `latest` is the recommended way to fix this issue. However, using [Advanced Initialization](https://next-auth.js.org/configuration/initialization#advanced-initialization), developers can manually check the [callback request](https://next-auth.js.org/getting-started/rest-api#getpost-apiauthcallbackprovider) for `state`, `pkce`, and `nonce` against the provider configuration, and abort the sign-in process if there is a mismatch. Check out the [source code](https://github.com/nextauthjs/next-auth/blob/v4/packages/next-auth/src/core/lib/oauth/checks.ts) for help.\n\n### References\n- [CSRF](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749#section-10.12)\n- [PKCE vs nonce](https://danielfett.de/2020/05/16/pkce-vs-nonce-equivalent-or-not/)\n- [OAuth provider options](https://next-auth.js.org/configuration/providers/oauth)\n- [`checks` provider config](https://authjs.dev/reference/core/providers#checks)",
"id": "GHSA-7r7x-4c4q-c4qf",
"modified": "2023-03-13T20:52:50Z",
"published": "2023-03-13T20:52:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nextauthjs/next-auth/security/advisories/GHSA-7r7x-4c4q-c4qf"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-27490"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://authjs.dev/reference/core/providers#checks"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://danielfett.de/2020/05/16/pkce-vs-nonce-equivalent-or-not"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/nextauthjs/next-auth"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nextauthjs/next-auth/compare/next-auth@4.20.0...next-auth@4.20.1#diff-cf9257195d0cb6a835ae4ff1fc73fe2cac0bab847efb0832c1f551209a972b47R55"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://next-auth.js.org/configuration/initialization#advanced-initialization"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://next-auth.js.org/configuration/providers/oauth"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security.netapp.com/advisory/ntap-20230420-0006"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749#section-10.12"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "Missing proper state, nonce and PKCE checks for OAuth authentication"
}
GHSA-7R9G-MRCM-864M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-09-07 00:01 – Updated: 2026-04-08 18:31The Banner Cycler plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including 1.4. This is due to missing nonce protection on the pabc_admin_slides_postback() function found in the ~/admin/admin.php file. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject malicious web scripts into the page, granted they can trick a site’s administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-2233"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-09-06T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The Banner Cycler plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including 1.4. This is due to missing nonce protection on the pabc_admin_slides_postback() function found in the ~/admin/admin.php file. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject malicious web scripts into the page, granted they can trick a site\u2019s administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.",
"id": "GHSA-7r9g-mrcm-864m",
"modified": "2026-04-08T18:31:58Z",
"published": "2022-09-07T00:01:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-2233"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/banner-cycler/trunk/admin/admin.php#L131"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/6cc1d7f2-053d-42d4-afb7-6fb69fd71b91?source=cve"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/vulnerability-advisories/#CVE-2022-2233"
}
],
"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-7R9R-JRF7-J7WH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-23 21:30 – Updated: 2026-09-23 21:30A vulnerability was determined in sfturing hosp_order up to 627f426331da8086ce8fff2017d65b1ddef384f8. Impacted is an unknown function of the file ssm_pro/src/main/java/cn/sfturing/web/CommonUserController.java. Executing a manipulation can lead to cross-site request forgery. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. This product does not use versioning. This is why information about affected and unaffected releases are unavailable. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-96551"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-23T20:17:26Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "A vulnerability was determined in sfturing hosp_order up to 627f426331da8086ce8fff2017d65b1ddef384f8. Impacted is an unknown function of the file ssm_pro/src/main/java/cn/sfturing/web/CommonUserController.java. Executing a manipulation can lead to cross-site request forgery. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. This product does not use versioning. This is why information about affected and unaffected releases are unavailable. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.",
"id": "GHSA-7r9r-jrf7-j7wh",
"modified": "2026-09-23T21:30:59Z",
"published": "2026-09-23T21:30:59Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-96551"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sfturing/hosp_order/issues/122"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sfturing/hosp_order"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/cve/CVE-2026-96551"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/submit/907907"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/408953"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/vuln/408953/cti"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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-7RCP-MXPQ-72PJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-18 17:41 – Updated: 2026-03-06 01:04Summary
The manual Chutes OAuth login flow could accept attacker-controlled callback input in a way that bypassed OAuth CSRF state validation, potentially resulting in credential substitution.
Impact
If an attacker can convince a user to paste attacker-provided OAuth callback data during the manual login prompt, OpenClaw may exchange an attacker-obtained authorization code and persist tokens for the wrong Chutes account.
The automatic local callback flow is not affected (it validates state in the local HTTP callback handler).
Affected Packages / Versions
openclaw(npm):<= 2026.2.13when using the manual Chutes OAuth login flow.
Fix
The manual flow now requires the full redirect URL (must include code and state), validates the returned state against the expected value, and rejects code-only pastes.
Fix Commit(s)
- a99ad11a4107ba8eac58f54a3c1a8a0cf5686f47
Thanks @aether-ai-agent for reporting.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "openclaw"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2026.2.14"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-28477"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-02-18T17:41:00Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-05T22:16:22Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nThe manual Chutes OAuth login flow could accept attacker-controlled callback input in a way that bypassed OAuth CSRF state validation, potentially resulting in credential substitution.\n\n## Impact\n\nIf an attacker can convince a user to paste attacker-provided OAuth callback data during the manual login prompt, OpenClaw may exchange an attacker-obtained authorization code and persist tokens for the wrong Chutes account.\n\nThe automatic local callback flow is not affected (it validates state in the local HTTP callback handler).\n\n## Affected Packages / Versions\n\n- `openclaw` (npm): `\u003c= 2026.2.13` when using the manual Chutes OAuth login flow.\n\n## Fix\n\nThe manual flow now requires the full redirect URL (must include `code` and `state`), validates the returned `state` against the expected value, and rejects code-only pastes.\n\n## Fix Commit(s)\n\n- a99ad11a4107ba8eac58f54a3c1a8a0cf5686f47\n\nThanks @aether-ai-agent for reporting.",
"id": "GHSA-7rcp-mxpq-72pj",
"modified": "2026-03-06T01:04:48Z",
"published": "2026-02-18T17:41:00Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/security/advisories/GHSA-7rcp-mxpq-72pj"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-28477"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/commit/a99ad11a4107ba8eac58f54a3c1a8a0cf5686f47"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openclaw/openclaw/releases/tag/v2026.2.14"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/openclaw-oauth-state-validation-bypass-in-manual-chutes-login-flow"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "OpenClaw Chutes manual OAuth state validation bypass can cause credential substitution"
}
GHSA-7RF8-3VCF-55Q4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:06 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:06A cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in Western Bridge Cobub Razor 0.7.2 via /index.php?/user/createNewUser/, resulting in account creation.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-7720"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2018-03-07T08:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in Western Bridge Cobub Razor 0.7.2 via /index.php?/user/createNewUser/, resulting in account creation.",
"id": "GHSA-7rf8-3vcf-55q4",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:06:13Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:06:13Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-7720"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Kyhvedn/CVE_Description/blob/master/CVE-2018-7720_Description.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"
}
]
}
GHSA-7RG4-266C-JQW6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2021-06-08 20:12 – Updated: 2022-06-29 20:41An issue was discovered in Centreon-Web in Centreon Platform 20.10.0. The anti-CSRF token generation is predictable, which might allow CSRF attacks that add an admin user.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "centreon/centreon"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "20.10.0"
},
{
"fixed": "20.10.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "centreon/centreon"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "20.04.0"
},
{
"fixed": "20.04.13"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "centreon/centreon"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "19.10.0"
},
{
"fixed": "19.10.23"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "centreon/centreon"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.8.37"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-28055"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-330",
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2021-05-07T15:18:01Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2021-04-15T19:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in Centreon-Web in Centreon Platform 20.10.0. The anti-CSRF token generation is predictable, which might allow CSRF attacks that add an admin user.",
"id": "GHSA-7rg4-266c-jqw6",
"modified": "2022-06-29T20:41:29Z",
"published": "2021-06-08T20:12:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-28055"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/centreon/centreon/pull/9612"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/centreon/centreon/commit/0261d4b250135eb513fdb7d52ba6fdeb19c6863f"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/centreon/centreon/commit/626d3fb91cef402df0ebda5a8165d8f45da67c7a"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/centreon/centreon"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/centreon/centreon/releases/tag/19.10.23"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/centreon/centreon/releases/tag/2.8.37"
}
],
"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": "Predictable CSRF tokens in centreon/centreon"
}
GHSA-7RG4-M9MF-M8JC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-10-17 12:30 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:32Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Hans Matzen wp-Monalisa allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects wp-Monalisa: from n/a through 6.4.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-48038"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-10-17T12:15:02Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Hans Matzen wp-Monalisa allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects wp-Monalisa: from n/a through 6.4.",
"id": "GHSA-7rg4-m9mf-m8jc",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:32:02Z",
"published": "2024-10-17T12:30:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-48038"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/wp-monalisa/vulnerability/wordpress-wp-monalisa-plugin-6-4-cross-site-request-forgery-csrf-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/wp-monalisa/wordpress-wp-monalisa-plugin-6-4-cross-site-request-forgery-csrf-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-7RGW-4MC2-RJJR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 01:47 – Updated: 2022-05-14 01:47tp4a TELEPORT 3.1.0 has CSRF via user/do-reset-password to change any password, such as the administrator password.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-19555"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2018-11-26T07:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "tp4a TELEPORT 3.1.0 has CSRF via user/do-reset-password to change any password, such as the administrator password.",
"id": "GHSA-7rgw-4mc2-rjjr",
"modified": "2022-05-14T01:47:13Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T01:47:13Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-19555"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Spicy1chicken/test/blob/master/Loophole_details.doc"
}
],
"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-7RHF-8V78-62Q4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-04-06 21:30 – Updated: 2023-04-13 15:30The WP Fastest Cache plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 1.1.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the deleteCssAndJsCacheToolbar function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to perform cache deletion via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-1927"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-04-06T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The WP Fastest Cache plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 1.1.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the deleteCssAndJsCacheToolbar function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to perform cache deletion via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.",
"id": "GHSA-7rhf-8v78-62q4",
"modified": "2023-04-13T15:30:35Z",
"published": "2023-04-06T21:30:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-1927"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/2893158/wp-fastest-cache/trunk/wpFastestCache.php?contextall=1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wordfence.com"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/4d3858f5-3f13-400c-acf4-eb3dc3a43308?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.