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
15020 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-92GW-VP7J-X89J
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-23 12:32 – Updated: 2026-07-23 12:32Unauthenticated Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in WP Accessibility Helper (WAH) <= 0.6.6 versions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-24537"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-23T12:17:12Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Unauthenticated Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in WP Accessibility Helper (WAH) \u003c= 0.6.6 versions.",
"id": "GHSA-92gw-vp7j-x89j",
"modified": "2026-07-23T12:32:24Z",
"published": "2026-07-23T12:32:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-24537"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/wp-accessibility-helper/vulnerability/wordpress-wp-accessibility-helper-wah-plugin-0-6-6-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-92H4-JH72-6GPM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:37 – Updated: 2026-07-05 00:31EgavilanMedia User Registration & Login System with Admin Panel 1.0 is affected by Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) to remotely gain privileges in the User Profile panel. An attacker can update any user's account.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-35273"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-12-21T15:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "EgavilanMedia User Registration \u0026 Login System with Admin Panel 1.0 is affected by Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) to remotely gain privileges in the User Profile panel. An attacker can update any user\u0027s account.",
"id": "GHSA-92h4-jh72-6gpm",
"modified": "2026-07-05T00:31:16Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:37:07Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-35273"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/49151"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://egavilanmedia.com"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-92HV-F7RC-P7XG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-24 15:30 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:31Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in YITH YITH WooCommerce Compare.This issue affects YITH WooCommerce Compare: from n/a through 2.37.0.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-32699"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-04-24T15:15:46Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in YITH YITH WooCommerce Compare.This issue affects YITH WooCommerce Compare: from n/a through 2.37.0.",
"id": "GHSA-92hv-f7rc-p7xg",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:31:46Z",
"published": "2024-04-24T15:30:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-32699"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/yith-woocommerce-compare/vulnerability/wordpress-yith-woocommerce-compare-plugin-2-37-0-cross-site-request-forgery-csrf-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/yith-woocommerce-compare/wordpress-yith-woocommerce-compare-plugin-2-37-0-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-92MF-W334-37R6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-23 12:32 – Updated: 2026-07-23 12:32Unauthenticated Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in Avada Core <= 5.15.6 versions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-65471"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-23T12:18:39Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "Unauthenticated Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in Avada Core \u003c= 5.15.6 versions.",
"id": "GHSA-92mf-w334-37r6",
"modified": "2026-07-23T12:32:28Z",
"published": "2026-07-23T12:32:28Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-65471"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/fusion-core/vulnerability/wordpress-avada-core-plugin-5-15-6-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:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-92MW-Q256-5VWG
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-01-19 20:37 – Updated: 2024-01-19 20:37Impact
The Argo CD API prior to versions 2.10-rc2, 2.9.4, 2.8.8, and 2.7.16 are vulnerable to a cross-server request forgery (CSRF) attack when the attacker has the ability to write HTML to a page on the same parent domain as Argo CD.
A CSRF attack works by tricking an authenticated Argo CD user into loading a web page which contains code to call Argo CD API endpoints on the victim’s behalf. For example, an attacker could send an Argo CD user a link to a page which looks harmless but in the background calls an Argo CD API endpoint to create an application running malicious code.
Argo CD uses the “Lax” SameSite cookie policy to prevent CSRF attacks where the attacker controls an external domain. The malicious external website can attempt to call the Argo CD API, but the web browser will refuse to send the Argo CD auth token with the request.
Many companies host Argo CD on an internal subdomain, such as https://argo-cd.internal.example.com. If an attacker can place malicious code on, for example, https://test.internal.example.com/, they can still perform a CSRF attack. In this case, the “Lax” SameSite cookie does not prevent the browser from sending the auth cookie, because the destination is a parent domain of the Argo CD API.
Browsers generally block such attacks by applying CORS policies to sensitive requests with sensitive content types. Specifically, browsers will send a “preflight request” for POSTs with content type “application/json” asking the destination API “are you allowed to accept requests from my domain?” If the destination API does not answer “yes,” the browser will block the request.
Before the patched versions, Argo CD did not validate that requests contained the correct content type header. So an attacker could bypass the browser’s CORS check by setting the content type to something which is considered “not sensitive” such as “text/plain.” The browser wouldn’t send the preflight request, and Argo CD would happily accept the contents (which are actually still JSON) and perform the requested action (such as running malicious code).
Patches
A patch for this vulnerability has been released in the following Argo CD versions:
- 2.10-rc2
- 2.9.4
- 2.8.8
- 2.7.16
🚨 The patch contains a breaking API change. 🚨 The Argo CD API will no longer accept non-GET requests which do not specify application/json as their Content-Type. The accepted content types list is configurable, and it is possible (but discouraged) to disable the content type check completely.
Workarounds
The only way to completely resolve the issue is to upgrade.
Credits
The Argo CD team would like to express their gratitude to An Trinh of Calif who reported the issue confidentially according to our guidelines and published a helpful blog post to describe the issue. We would also like to thank them for actively participating in the review for the patch.
References
- The problem was originally reported in a GitHub issue
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/argoproj/argo-cd"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.1.0"
},
{
"last_affected": "1.8.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/v2"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.7.16"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/v2"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.8.0-rc1"
},
{
"fixed": "2.8.8"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/v2"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.9.0-rc1"
},
{
"fixed": "2.9.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/v2"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.10.0-rc1"
},
{
"fixed": "2.10-rc2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
],
"versions": [
"2.10.0-rc1"
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-22424"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-01-19T20:37:53Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-01-19T01:15:09Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nThe Argo CD API prior to versions 2.10-rc2, 2.9.4, 2.8.8, and 2.7.16 are vulnerable to a cross-server request forgery (CSRF) attack when the attacker has the ability to write HTML to a page on the same parent domain as Argo CD.\n\nA CSRF attack works by tricking an authenticated Argo CD user into loading a web page which contains code to call Argo CD API endpoints on the victim\u2019s behalf. For example, an attacker could send an Argo CD user a link to a page which looks harmless but in the background calls an Argo CD API endpoint to create an application running malicious code.\n\nArgo CD uses the \u201cLax\u201d SameSite cookie policy to prevent CSRF attacks where the attacker controls an external domain. The malicious external website can attempt to call the Argo CD API, but the web browser will refuse to send the Argo CD auth token with the request.\n\nMany companies host Argo CD on an internal subdomain, such as [https://argo-cd.internal.example.com](https://argo-cd.example.com/). If an attacker can place malicious code on, for example, https://test.internal.example.com/, they can still perform a CSRF attack. In this case, the \u201cLax\u201d SameSite cookie does not prevent the browser from sending the auth cookie, because the destination is a parent domain of the Argo CD API.\n\nBrowsers generally block such attacks by applying CORS policies to sensitive requests with sensitive content types. Specifically, browsers will send a \u201cpreflight request\u201d for POSTs with content type \u201capplication/json\u201d asking the destination API \u201care you allowed to accept requests from my domain?\u201d If the destination API does not answer \u201cyes,\u201d the browser will block the request.\n\nBefore the patched versions, Argo CD did not validate that requests contained the correct content type header. So an attacker could bypass the browser\u2019s CORS check by setting the content type to something which is considered \u201cnot sensitive\u201d such as \u201ctext/plain.\u201d The browser wouldn\u2019t send the preflight request, and Argo CD would happily accept the contents (which are actually still JSON) and perform the requested action (such as running malicious code).\n\n### Patches\n\nA patch for this vulnerability has been released in the following Argo CD versions:\n\n* 2.10-rc2\n* 2.9.4\n* 2.8.8\n* 2.7.16\n\n\ud83d\udea8 **The patch contains a breaking API change.** \ud83d\udea8 The Argo CD API will no longer accept non-GET requests which do not specify application/json as their Content-Type. The accepted content types list is configurable, and it is possible (but discouraged) to disable the content type check completely.\n\n### Workarounds\n\nThe only way to completely resolve the issue is to upgrade.\n\n### Credits\n\nThe Argo CD team would like to express their gratitude to An Trinh of [Calif](https://calif.io/) who reported the issue confidentially according to our [guidelines](https://github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/blob/master/SECURITY.md#reporting-a-vulnerability) and published a helpful [blog post](https://blog.calif.io/p/argo-cd-csrf) to describe the issue. We would also like to thank them for actively participating in the review for the patch.\n\n### References\n\n* The problem was originally reported in a [GitHub issue](https://github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/issues/2496)",
"id": "GHSA-92mw-q256-5vwg",
"modified": "2024-01-19T20:37:53Z",
"published": "2024-01-19T20:37:53Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/security/advisories/GHSA-92mw-q256-5vwg"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-22424"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/issues/2496"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/pull/16860"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/commit/0b459f224b3186707809be8240dfc3a6028f42a0"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/commit/13fe3ca589f6f2ded6001ce114e354602ed058b3"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/commit/3c5878ecf41581942281e9c95745f073bdfbf9c3"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/argoproj/argo-cd/commit/f569aa105e0fe5940bc736c68e2fc90ee4a6ed94"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/argoproj/argo-cd"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "github.com/argoproj/argo-cd Cross-Site Request Forgery vulnerability"
}
GHSA-92PC-3CWW-H4MX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-18 15:31 – Updated: 2026-08-18 15:31Unauthenticated Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in Slider by 10Web <= 1.2.62 versions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-66635"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-08-18T15:16:58Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Unauthenticated Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in Slider by 10Web \u003c= 1.2.62 versions.",
"id": "GHSA-92pc-3cww-h4mx",
"modified": "2026-08-18T15:31:47Z",
"published": "2026-08-18T15:31:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-66635"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/slider-wd/vulnerability/wordpress-slider-by-10web-plugin-1-2-62-csrf-to-arbitrary-file-deletion-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:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-92PC-GCCF-WHQ7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-16 15:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:32Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Project Caruso Flaming Forms allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Flaming Forms: from n/a through 1.0.1.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-54398"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-12-16T15:15:15Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Project Caruso Flaming Forms allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Flaming Forms: from n/a through 1.0.1.",
"id": "GHSA-92pc-gccf-whq7",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:32:50Z",
"published": "2024-12-16T15:31:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-54398"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/flaming-forms/vulnerability/wordpress-flaming-forms-plugin-1-0-1-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-92PH-VWR5-G5F4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:44 – Updated: 2022-10-14 12:00The administrator web interface of TIBCO Software Inc.'s TIBCO ActiveMatrix BPM, TIBCO ActiveMatrix BPM Distribution for TIBCO Silver Fabric, TIBCO ActiveMatrix Policy Director, TIBCO ActiveMatrix Service Bus, TIBCO ActiveMatrix Service Grid, TIBCO Silver Fabric Enabler for ActiveMatrix BPM, and TIBCO Silver Fabric Enabler for ActiveMatrix Service Grid contains multiple vulnerabilities that may allow for cross-site scripting (XSS) and cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks. Affected releases are TIBCO Software Inc.'s TIBCO ActiveMatrix BPM: versions up to and including 4.2.0, TIBCO ActiveMatrix BPM Distribution for TIBCO Silver Fabric: versions up to and including 4.2.0, TIBCO ActiveMatrix Policy Director: versions up to and including 1.1.0, TIBCO ActiveMatrix Service Bus: versions up to and including 3.3.0, TIBCO ActiveMatrix Service Grid: versions up to and including 3.3.1, TIBCO Silver Fabric Enabler for ActiveMatrix BPM: versions up to and including 1.4.1, and TIBCO Silver Fabric Enabler for ActiveMatrix Service Grid: versions up to and including 1.3.1.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-8991"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-04-24T21:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "The administrator web interface of TIBCO Software Inc.\u0027s TIBCO ActiveMatrix BPM, TIBCO ActiveMatrix BPM Distribution for TIBCO Silver Fabric, TIBCO ActiveMatrix Policy Director, TIBCO ActiveMatrix Service Bus, TIBCO ActiveMatrix Service Grid, TIBCO Silver Fabric Enabler for ActiveMatrix BPM, and TIBCO Silver Fabric Enabler for ActiveMatrix Service Grid contains multiple vulnerabilities that may allow for cross-site scripting (XSS) and cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks. Affected releases are TIBCO Software Inc.\u0027s TIBCO ActiveMatrix BPM: versions up to and including 4.2.0, TIBCO ActiveMatrix BPM Distribution for TIBCO Silver Fabric: versions up to and including 4.2.0, TIBCO ActiveMatrix Policy Director: versions up to and including 1.1.0, TIBCO ActiveMatrix Service Bus: versions up to and including 3.3.0, TIBCO ActiveMatrix Service Grid: versions up to and including 3.3.1, TIBCO Silver Fabric Enabler for ActiveMatrix BPM: versions up to and including 1.4.1, and TIBCO Silver Fabric Enabler for ActiveMatrix Service Grid: versions up to and including 1.3.1.",
"id": "GHSA-92ph-vwr5-g5f4",
"modified": "2022-10-14T12:00:17Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T16:44:34Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-8991"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.tibco.com/support/advisories/2019/04/tibco-security-advisory-april-24-2019-tibco-active-matrix-service-grid-2019-8991"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/108059"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.tibco.com/services/support/advisories"
}
],
"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-92R2-9Q8H-28W4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-08-20 15:32 – Updated: 2024-08-20 21:30Pligg CMS v2.0.2 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability via /admin/admin_editor.php
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-42621"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-08-20T15:15:22Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Pligg CMS v2.0.2 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability via /admin/admin_editor.php",
"id": "GHSA-92r2-9q8h-28w4",
"modified": "2024-08-20T21:30:34Z",
"published": "2024-08-20T15:32:13Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-42621"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jinwu1234567890/cms2/tree/main/12/readme.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-92R4-WXV7-Q9RX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 01:45 – Updated: 2022-05-17 01:45Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in the Node Hierarchy module 6.x-1.x before 6.x-1.5 for Drupal allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that change a node hierarchy position via an (1) up or (2) down action.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2012-2728"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2012-06-27T00:55:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in the Node Hierarchy module 6.x-1.x before 6.x-1.5 for Drupal allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that change a node hierarchy position via an (1) up or (2) down action.",
"id": "GHSA-92r4-wxv7-q9rx",
"modified": "2022-05-17T01:45:21Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T01:45:21Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2012-2728"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/76345"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://drupal.org/node/1632432"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://drupal.org/node/1632900"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://drupalcode.org/project/nodehierarchy.git/commitdiff/8b4b3f5"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2012/06/14/3"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/53993"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
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.