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
15024 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-85R9-5WFQ-FRXC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-04-09 18:30 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:34Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in SCAND MultiMailer allows Stored XSS. This issue affects MultiMailer: from n/a through 1.0.3.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-32505"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-04-09T17:15:44Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in SCAND MultiMailer allows Stored XSS. This issue affects MultiMailer: from n/a through 1.0.3.",
"id": "GHSA-85r9-5wfq-frxc",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:34:36Z",
"published": "2025-04-09T18:30:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-32505"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/scand-multi-mailer/vulnerability/wordpress-multimailer-plugin-1-0-3-csrf-to-stored-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:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-85RM-JM8V-379F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:23 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:23SocuSoft Flash Slideshow Maker Professional through v5.20, when the advanced configuration is used, has an xml_path HTTP parameter that trusts user-supplied input, in conjunction with an unsafe XML configuration file. This has resultant content forgery, cross site scripting, and unvalidated redirection issues.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-12439"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-08-05T15:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "SocuSoft Flash Slideshow Maker Professional through v5.20, when the advanced configuration is used, has an xml_path HTTP parameter that trusts user-supplied input, in conjunction with an unsafe XML configuration file. This has resultant content forgery, cross site scripting, and unvalidated redirection issues.",
"id": "GHSA-85rm-jm8v-379f",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:23:14Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:23:14Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-12439"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://packetstormsecurity.com/files/143542/Flash-Slideshow-Maker-Professional-XSS-Content-Forgery-Redirect.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-85RQ-HP8X-GHJQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-01-13 00:01 – Updated: 2023-10-27 16:15Jenkins Mailer Plugin prior to 408.vd726a_1130320 and 1.34.2 does not perform a permission check in a method implementing form validation.
This allows attackers with Overall/Read access to use the DNS used by the Jenkins instance to resolve an attacker-specified hostname.
Additionally, this form validation method does not require POST requests, resulting in a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability.
Mailer Plugin 408.vd726a_1130320 and 1.34.2 require POST requests and Overall/Administer permission for the affected form validation method.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.jenkins-ci.plugins:mailer"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "391.ve4a38c1bcf4b"
},
{
"fixed": "408.vd726a"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.jenkins-ci.plugins:mailer"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.34.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-20613"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-06-20T22:50:18Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-01-12T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Jenkins Mailer Plugin prior to 408.vd726a_1130320 and 1.34.2 does not perform a permission check in a method implementing form validation.\n\nThis allows attackers with Overall/Read access to use the DNS used by the Jenkins instance to resolve an attacker-specified hostname.\n\nAdditionally, this form validation method does not require POST requests, resulting in a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability.\n\nMailer Plugin 408.vd726a_1130320 and 1.34.2 require POST requests and Overall/Administer permission for the affected form validation method.",
"id": "GHSA-85rq-hp8x-ghjq",
"modified": "2023-10-27T16:15:35Z",
"published": "2022-01-13T00:01:04Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-20613"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/mailer-plugin/commit/5e6051fae61a43564e22aa89cb24ed8a42a26052"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/mailer-plugin"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.jenkins.io/security/advisory/2022-01-12/#SECURITY-2163"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.oracle.com/security-alerts/cpuapr2022.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2022/01/12/6"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "Cross-Site Request Forgery in Jenkins Mailer Plugin"
}
GHSA-85V6-Q829-6QXQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-08 09:31 – Updated: 2026-04-09 18:31Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Skywarrior Blackfyre blackfyre allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Blackfyre: from n/a through <= 2.5.4.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-39641"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-08T09:16:34Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Skywarrior Blackfyre blackfyre allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Blackfyre: from n/a through \u003c= 2.5.4.",
"id": "GHSA-85v6-q829-6qxq",
"modified": "2026-04-09T18:31:25Z",
"published": "2026-04-08T09:31:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-39641"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Theme/blackfyre/vulnerability/wordpress-blackfyre-theme-2-5-4-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:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-85VC-GG38-H7Q5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:19 – Updated: 2022-05-13 01:19wg7.php in Webgalamb 7.0 lacks security measures to prevent CSRF attacks, as demonstrated by wg7.php?options=1 to change the administrator password.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-19511"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-03-21T16:00:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "wg7.php in Webgalamb 7.0 lacks security measures to prevent CSRF attacks, as demonstrated by wg7.php?options=1 to change the administrator password.",
"id": "GHSA-85vc-gg38-h7q5",
"modified": "2022-05-13T01:19:48Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:19:48Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-19511"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/151017/Webgalamb-Information-Disclosure-XSS-CSRF-SQL-Injection.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2019/Jan/15"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-85VR-Q6XJ-XF78
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 01:53 – Updated: 2022-05-14 01:53Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in Koha 3.14.x before 3.14.16, 3.16.x before 3.16.12, 3.18.x before 3.18.08, and 3.20.x before 3.20.1 allow remote attackers to (1) hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that create a user via a request to members/memberentry.pl or (2) give a user superlibrarian permission via a request to members/member-flags.pl or (3) hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests that conduct cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks via the addshelf parameter to opac-shelves.pl.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2015-4630"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2018-10-18T21:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in Koha 3.14.x before 3.14.16, 3.16.x before 3.16.12, 3.18.x before 3.18.08, and 3.20.x before 3.20.1 allow remote attackers to (1) hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that create a user via a request to members/memberentry.pl or (2) give a user superlibrarian permission via a request to members/member-flags.pl or (3) hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests that conduct cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks via the addshelf parameter to opac-shelves.pl.",
"id": "GHSA-85vr-q6xj-xf78",
"modified": "2022-05-14T01:53:13Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T01:53:13Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2015-4630"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=14423"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://koha-community.org/koha-3-14-16-released"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://koha-community.org/security-release-koha-3-16-12"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://koha-community.org/security-release-koha-3-18-8"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://koha-community.org/security-release-koha-3-20-1"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://packetstormsecurity.com/files/132458/Koha-ILS-3.20.x-CSRF-XSS-Traversal-SQL-Injection.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2015/Jun/80"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/37389"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.sba-research.org/2015/06/24/researchers-of-sba-research-found-several-critical-security-vulnerabilities-in-the-koha-library-software-via-combinatorial-testing"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-85WQ-PQHP-HMQ6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 03:44 – Updated: 2022-07-01 22:10Jenkins versions 2.56 and earlier as well as 2.46.1 LTS and earlier are vulnerable to an issue in the Jenkins user database authentication realm: create an account if signup is enabled; or create an account if the victim is an administrator, possibly deleting the existing default admin user in the process and allowing a wide variety of impacts.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.56"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.50"
},
{
"fixed": "2.57"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.46.1"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.46.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-1000356"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-07-01T22:10:29Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2018-01-29T17:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Jenkins versions 2.56 and earlier as well as 2.46.1 LTS and earlier are vulnerable to an issue in the Jenkins user database authentication realm: create an account if signup is enabled; or create an account if the victim is an administrator, possibly deleting the existing default admin user in the process and allowing a wide variety of impacts.",
"id": "GHSA-85wq-pqhp-hmq6",
"modified": "2022-07-01T22:10:29Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T03:44:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-1000356"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/commit/23f4809e6c10a221e9d67f2e841536845387b42d"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/commit/3c5e5ca63d9a1ac1c4087682dc0d426625eafed8"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/commit/e69c28e44dae41322112471e1c80f840bde314d4"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jenkins.io/security/advisory/2017-04-26"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/98062"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "Cross-Site Request Forgery in Jenkins"
}
GHSA-85WV-2PFC-877H
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-21 21:32 – Updated: 2026-10-21 21:32Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Tailored Media Tailored Tools tailored-tools allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Tailored Tools: from n/a through 3.0.3.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-111401"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-21T19:16:58Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Tailored Media Tailored Tools tailored-tools allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Tailored Tools: from n/a through 3.0.3.",
"id": "GHSA-85wv-2pfc-877h",
"modified": "2026-10-21T21:32:34Z",
"published": "2026-10-21T21:32:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-111401"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/tailored-tools/vulnerability/wordpress-tailored-tools-plugin-3-0-3-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:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-8639-QX56-R428
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-06-01 20:26 – Updated: 2022-06-01 20:26Impact
CSRF vulnerability allowing attackers to change the state of an order's adjustments if they hold its number, and the execution happens on a store administrator's computer.
Reproduction steps:
- Take an order's number.
- Log in as an administrator.
- Visit that order's adjustments section (Orders -> {Click on number} -> Adjustments) and check that its adjustments are finalized (closed padlock under the State column).
- On another tab, visit {your_site_url}/admin/orders/{order_number}/adjustments/unfinalize.
- Notice how the adjustments are unfinalized (open padlock), even if the previous was a GET request which could have been linked from any other site.
- Visit {your_site_url}/admin/orders/{order_number}/adjustments/finalize.
- Notice how the adjustments are again finalized.
That happened because both routes were handled as GET requests, which are skipped by Rails anti-forgery protection.
Patches
Users should upgrade to solidus_backend v3.1.6, v3.0.6, or v2.11.16, depending on the major and minor versions in use.
References
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:
- Open an issue or a discussion in Solidus.
- Email us at security@solidus.io
- Contact the core team on Slack
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "RubyGems",
"name": "solidus_backend"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.11.16"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "RubyGems",
"name": "solidus_backend"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "3.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.0.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "RubyGems",
"name": "solidus_backend"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "3.1.0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.1.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-31000"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-06-01T20:26:37Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-06-01T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "### Impact\nCSRF vulnerability allowing attackers to change the state of an order\u0027s adjustments if they hold its number, and the execution happens on a store administrator\u0027s computer.\n\nReproduction steps:\n- Take an order\u0027s number.\n- Log in as an administrator.\n- Visit that order\u0027s adjustments section (_Orders -\u003e {Click on number} -\u003e Adjustments_) and check that its adjustments are finalized (closed padlock under the **State** column).\n- On another tab, visit `{your_site_url}/admin/orders/{order_number}/adjustments/unfinalize`.\n- Notice how the adjustments are unfinalized (open padlock), even if the previous was a `GET` request which could have been linked from any other site.\n- Visit `{your_site_url}/admin/orders/{order_number}/adjustments/finalize`.\n- Notice how the adjustments are again finalized.\n\nThat happened because both routes were handled as `GET` requests, which are skipped by Rails anti-forgery protection.\n\n### Patches\nUsers should upgrade to solidus_backend v3.1.6, v3.0.6, or v2.11.16, depending on the major and minor versions in use.\n\n### References\n- [Rails CSRF protection](https://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActionController/RequestForgeryProtection.html).\n\n### For more information\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory:\n\n- Open an [issue](https://github.com/solidusio/solidus/issues) or a [discussion](https://github.com/solidusio/solidus/discussions) in Solidus.\n- Email us at [security@solidus.io](mailto:security@soliidus.io)\n- Contact the core team on [Slack](http://slack.solidus.io/)\n",
"id": "GHSA-8639-qx56-r428",
"modified": "2022-06-01T20:26:37Z",
"published": "2022-06-01T20:26:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/solidusio/solidus/security/advisories/GHSA-8639-qx56-r428"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-31000"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/solidusio/solidus/commit/de796a2e0be7f154cae48b46e267501559d9716c"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/rubysec/ruby-advisory-db/blob/master/gems/solidus_backend/CVE-2022-31000.yml"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/solidusio/solidus"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "CSRF allows attacker to finalize/unfinalize order adjustments in solidus_backend"
}
GHSA-865M-G6FC-H55Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-10-12 15:31 – Updated: 2024-04-04 08:35Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in KaizenCoders Short URL plugin <= 1.6.8 versions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-45058"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-10-12T13:15:10Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in KaizenCoders Short URL plugin \u003c=\u00a01.6.8 versions.",
"id": "GHSA-865m-g6fc-h55q",
"modified": "2024-04-04T08:35:24Z",
"published": "2023-10-12T15:31:07Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-45058"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/shorten-url/wordpress-short-url-plugin-1-6-8-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"
}
]
}
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.