Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-352

Weakness Allowed

Cross-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
ChildOf: CWE-345 · View CWE-1000
ChildOf: CWE-345 · View CWE-1003
Requires: CWE-346 · View CWE-1000
Requires: CWE-441 · View CWE-1000
Requires: CWE-642 · View CWE-1000
Requires: CWE-613 · View CWE-1000
Modes of introduction
Architecture and Design

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
Submission: PLOVER · 2006-07-19 · CWE Draft 3
Contribution: Abhi Balakrishnan · 2024-02-29 · CWE 4.17

Contributed usability diagram concepts used by the CWE team.

Modification: Eric Dalci · Cigital · 2008-07-01 · CWE 1.0

updated Time_of_Introduction

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2008-09-08 · CWE 1.0

updated Alternate_Terms, Description, Relationships, Other_Notes, Relationship_Notes, Taxonomy_Mappings

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2009-01-12 · CWE 1.2

updated Applicable_Platforms, Description, Likelihood_of_Exploit, Observed_Examples, Other_Notes, Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationship_Notes, Relationships, Research_Gaps, Theoretical_Notes

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2009-03-10 · CWE 1.3

updated Potential_Mitigations

Modification: Tom Stracener · 2009-05-20 · CWE 1.4

Added demonstrative example for profile.

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2009-05-27 · CWE 1.4

updated Demonstrative_Examples, Related_Attack_Patterns

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2009-12-28 · CWE 1.7

updated Common_Consequences, Demonstrative_Examples, Detection_Factors, Likelihood_of_Exploit, Observed_Examples, Potential_Mitigations, Time_of_Introduction

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2010-02-16 · CWE 1.8

updated Applicable_Platforms, Detection_Factors, References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2010-06-21 · CWE 1.9

updated Common_Consequences, Detection_Factors, Potential_Mitigations, References, Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2010-09-27 · CWE 1.10

updated Potential_Mitigations

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2011-03-29 · CWE 1.12

updated Description

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2011-06-01 · CWE 1.13

updated Common_Consequences

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2011-06-27 · CWE 2.0

updated Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2011-09-13 · CWE 2.1

updated Potential_Mitigations, References

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2012-05-11 · CWE 2.2

updated Related_Attack_Patterns, Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2012-10-30 · CWE 2.3

updated Potential_Mitigations

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2013-02-21 · CWE 2.4

updated Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2013-07-17 · CWE 2.5

updated References, Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2014-07-30 · CWE 2.8

updated Detection_Factors

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2015-12-07 · CWE 2.9

updated Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2017-11-08 · CWE 3.0

updated Applicable_Platforms, Likelihood_of_Exploit, Modes_of_Introduction, References, Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2018-03-27 · CWE 3.1

updated References, Relationship_Notes, Research_Gaps

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2019-09-19 · CWE 3.4

updated Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2020-02-24 · CWE 4.0

updated Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2020-06-25 · CWE 4.1

updated Relationships, Theoretical_Notes

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2020-08-20 · CWE 4.2

updated Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2021-07-20 · CWE 4.5

updated Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2021-10-28 · CWE 4.6

updated Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2022-06-28 · CWE 4.8

updated Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2023-04-27 · CWE 4.11

updated References, Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2023-06-29 · CWE 4.12

updated Mapping_Notes, Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2024-11-19 · CWE 4.16

updated Relationships

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2025-04-03 · CWE 4.17

updated Alternate_Terms, Common_Consequences, Description, Diagram

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2025-09-09 · CWE 4.18

updated Detection_Factors, Potential_Mitigations, References

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2025-12-11 · CWE 4.19

updated Applicable_Platforms, Relationships, Weakness_Ordinalities

Modification: CWE Content Team · MITRE · 2026-10-28 · CWE 5.0

updated Applicable_Platforms, Name, References, Relationships, Taxonomy_Mappings

15012 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.

GHSA-C6XR-3CP2-F7F7

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-01 23:45 – Updated: 2022-05-01 23:45
VLAI
Details

Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities on Motorola Surfboard with software SB5100-2.3.3.0-SCM00-NOSH allow remote attackers to (1) cause a denial of service (device reboot) via the "Restart Cable Modem" value in the BUTTON_INPUT parameter to configdata.html, and (2) cause a denial of service (hard reset) via the "Reset All Defaults" value in the BUTTON_INPUT parameter to configdata.html.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2008-2002"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-352"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2008-04-28T20:05:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities on Motorola Surfboard with software SB5100-2.3.3.0-SCM00-NOSH allow remote attackers to (1) cause a denial of service (device reboot) via the \"Restart Cable Modem\" value in the BUTTON_INPUT parameter to configdata.html, and (2) cause a denial of service (hard reset) via the \"Reset All Defaults\" value in the BUTTON_INPUT parameter to configdata.html.",
  "id": "GHSA-c6xr-3cp2-f7f7",
  "modified": "2022-05-01T23:45:47Z",
  "published": "2022-05-01T23:45:47Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2008-2002"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/42091"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/30026"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://securityreason.com/securityalert/3839"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/643049"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.rooksecurity.com/blog/?p=4"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/491143/100/0/threaded"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.vupen.com/english/advisories/2008/1390/references"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": []
}

GHSA-C729-XXG9-22VV

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 16:54 – Updated: 2024-04-04 01:43
VLAI
Details

The GoDaddy godaddy-email-marketing-sign-up-forms plugin before 1.1.3 for WordPress has CSRF.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2016-10903"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-352"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2019-08-21T13:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "The GoDaddy godaddy-email-marketing-sign-up-forms plugin before 1.1.3 for WordPress has CSRF.",
  "id": "GHSA-c729-xxg9-22vv",
  "modified": "2024-04-04T01:43:59Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T16:54:19Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-10903"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://wordpress.org/plugins/godaddy-email-marketing-sign-up-forms/#developers"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-C72G-6V9G-4GQ7

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-03-11 21:30 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:33
VLAI
Details

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in mg12 Mobile Themes allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects Mobile Themes: from n/a through 1.1.1.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-28881"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-352"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-03-11T21:15:45Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in mg12 Mobile Themes allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects Mobile Themes: from n/a through 1.1.1.",
  "id": "GHSA-c72g-6v9g-4gq7",
  "modified": "2026-04-01T18:33:56Z",
  "published": "2025-03-11T21:30:39Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-28881"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/wp-mobile-themes/vulnerability/wordpress-mobile-themes-plugin-1-1-1-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-C72J-2FGM-89CC

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 19:57 – Updated: 2024-04-03 23:58
VLAI
Details

The feature-comments plugin before 1.2.5 for WordPress has CSRF for featuring or burying a comment.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2014-10382"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-352"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2019-08-22T20:15:00Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "The feature-comments plugin before 1.2.5 for WordPress has CSRF for featuring or burying a comment.",
  "id": "GHSA-c72j-2fgm-89cc",
  "modified": "2024-04-03T23:58:44Z",
  "published": "2022-05-17T19:57:00Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2014-10382"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://wordpress.org/plugins/feature-comments/#developers"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-C735-G9F2-2MVP

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:12 – Updated: 2024-03-12 16:01
VLAI
Summary
Cross-Site Request Forgery in Jenkins
Details

An extension point in Jenkins allows selectively disabling cross-site request forgery (CSRF) protection for specific URLs.

Implementations of that extension point received a different representation of the URL path than the Stapler web framework uses to dispatch requests in Jenkins 2.227 and earlier, LTS 2.204.5 and earlier. This discrepancy allowed attackers to craft URLs that would bypass the CSRF protection of any target URL.

Jenkins now uses the same representation of the URL path to decide whether CSRF protection is needed for a given URL as the Stapler web framework uses.

In case of problems, administrators can disable this security fix by setting the system property hudson.security.csrf.CrumbFilter.UNPROCESSED_PATHINFO to true.

As an additional safeguard, semicolon (;) characters in the path part of a URL are now banned by default. Administrators can disable this protection by setting the system property jenkins.security.SuspiciousRequestFilter.allowSemicolonsInPath to true.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.204.5"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Maven",
        "name": "org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.204.6"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "database_specific": {
        "last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 2.227"
      },
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Maven",
        "name": "org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "2.205"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "2.228"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2020-2160"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-352",
      "CWE-435"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2022-06-24T00:58:56Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2020-03-25T17:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "An extension point in Jenkins allows selectively disabling cross-site request forgery (CSRF) protection for specific URLs.\n\nImplementations of that extension point received a different representation of the URL path than the Stapler web framework uses to dispatch requests in Jenkins 2.227 and earlier, LTS 2.204.5 and earlier. This discrepancy allowed attackers to craft URLs that would bypass the CSRF protection of any target URL.\n\nJenkins now uses the same representation of the URL path to decide whether CSRF protection is needed for a given URL as the Stapler web framework uses.\n\nIn case of problems, administrators can disable this security fix by setting the system property `hudson.security.csrf.CrumbFilter.UNPROCESSED_PATHINFO` to `true`.\n\nAs an additional safeguard, semicolon (`;`) characters in the path part of a URL are now banned by default. Administrators can disable this protection by setting the system property `jenkins.security.SuspiciousRequestFilter.allowSemicolonsInPath` to `true`.",
  "id": "GHSA-c735-g9f2-2mvp",
  "modified": "2024-03-12T16:01:44Z",
  "published": "2022-05-24T17:12:40Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-2160"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/commit/f479652171f4ab854747de64b22bf59adb35fb8f"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/commit/f7cf28355973df1ca6eb19066370bf70b10742f7"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://jenkins.io/security/advisory/2020-03-25/#SECURITY-1774"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2020/03/25/2"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Cross-Site Request Forgery in Jenkins"
}

GHSA-C73C-X77G-854R

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-05-12 15:34 – Updated: 2026-06-09 10:59
VLAI
Summary
OpenClaude MCP OAuth Callback: State Check Bypass via error Param Leads to DoS
Details

OAuth State Validation Bypass via error Parameter Causes Local Server DoS in MCP Auth Callback


Description

The OpenClaude MCP authentication flow starts a temporary local HTTP server to handle OAuth callbacks. To prevent CSRF attacks, the server validates a state parameter against an internally stored value. However, due to a logic flaw in the order of conditionals, an attacker can completely bypass this check and force the server to shut down — without knowing the state value at all.

The vulnerable code looks like this:

if (!error && state !== oauthState) {
    rejectOnce(new Error('OAuth state mismatch - possible CSRF attack'))
    return
}

if (error) {
    cleanup()
    rejectOnce(new Error(errorMessage))
    return
}

When a request arrives with an error query parameter (e.g., ?error=anything), the first condition becomes false because !error evaluates to false. This means the CSRF check is never reached. Execution falls through to the second block, where cleanup() is called — shutting down the local server and terminating the user's active authentication session.

The attacker does not need to know the state value. Any request containing an error parameter is enough to trigger the shutdown.


Impact

  • The user's OAuth flow is silently terminated mid-session
  • The local callback server is shut down (Denial of Service)
  • Can be triggered remotely via a malicious web page using a cross-origin request (CSRF)
  • No authentication or prior knowledge of the state value is required

Steps to Reproduce

Save the following as poc.js and run with Node.js:

import { createServer } from 'http';
import { parse } from 'url';

const expectedState = "secure_state_abc123";

const server = createServer((req, res) => {
    const parsedUrl = parse(req.url || '', true);
    const { pathname, query } = parsedUrl;
    const { state, error } = query;

    if (pathname === '/callback') {

        // Vulnerable: error param causes state check to be skipped entirely
        if (!error && state !== expectedState) {
            res.writeHead(400);
            res.end('State mismatch');
            console.log('[-] CSRF attempt blocked.');
            return;
        }

        if (error) {
            res.writeHead(200);
            res.end(`Error: ${error}`);
            console.log(`[!] Server shutting down. Triggered by: ${error}`);
            server.close();
            return;
        }
    }
});

server.listen(12345, '127.0.0.1', () => {
    console.log('Listening on http://127.0.0.1:12345');
});

Terminal 1 — start the server:

node poc.js

Terminal 2 — trigger the bypass:

curl "http://127.0.0.1:12345/callback?error=triggered"

Expected result: Server shuts down immediately. The state value was never checked.


Root Cause

The CSRF protection is conditioned on !error, meaning it is silently disabled whenever an error parameter is present. The two checks need to be decoupled — state validation must happen first, independently of any other parameters.


Fix

Move the state check before the error check, and remove the dependency on !error:

// Fixed
if (state !== oauthState) {
    cleanup()
    rejectOnce(new Error('OAuth state mismatch - possible CSRF attack'))
    return
}

if (error) {
    cleanup()
    rejectOnce(new Error(errorMessage))
    return
}

With this change, any request — whether it contains an error parameter or not — must first pass the state validation before any further processing occurs.


Credit: Xanlar Agamalizade

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "@gitlawb/openclaude"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.5.1"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-42073"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-352",
      "CWE-400"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-05-12T15:34:30Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-06-02T17:16:31Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "# OAuth State Validation Bypass via `error` Parameter Causes Local Server DoS in MCP Auth Callback\n---\n\n## Description\n\nThe OpenClaude MCP authentication flow starts a temporary local HTTP server to handle OAuth callbacks. To prevent CSRF attacks, the server validates a `state` parameter against an internally stored value. However, due to a logic flaw in the order of conditionals, an attacker can completely bypass this check and force the server to shut down \u2014 without knowing the `state` value at all.\n\nThe vulnerable code looks like this:\n\n```typescript\nif (!error \u0026\u0026 state !== oauthState) {\n    rejectOnce(new Error(\u0027OAuth state mismatch - possible CSRF attack\u0027))\n    return\n}\n\nif (error) {\n    cleanup()\n    rejectOnce(new Error(errorMessage))\n    return\n}\n```\n\nWhen a request arrives with an `error` query parameter (e.g., `?error=anything`), the first condition becomes `false` because `!error` evaluates to `false`. This means the CSRF check is **never reached**. Execution falls through to the second block, where `cleanup()` is called \u2014 shutting down the local server and terminating the user\u0027s active authentication session.\n\nThe attacker does not need to know the `state` value. Any request containing an `error` parameter is enough to trigger the shutdown.\n\n---\n\n## Impact\n\n- The user\u0027s OAuth flow is silently terminated mid-session\n- The local callback server is shut down (Denial of Service)\n- Can be triggered remotely via a malicious web page using a cross-origin request (CSRF)\n- No authentication or prior knowledge of the `state` value is required\n\n---\n\n## Steps to Reproduce\n\nSave the following as `poc.js` and run with Node.js:\n\n```javascript\nimport { createServer } from \u0027http\u0027;\nimport { parse } from \u0027url\u0027;\n\nconst expectedState = \"secure_state_abc123\";\n\nconst server = createServer((req, res) =\u003e {\n    const parsedUrl = parse(req.url || \u0027\u0027, true);\n    const { pathname, query } = parsedUrl;\n    const { state, error } = query;\n\n    if (pathname === \u0027/callback\u0027) {\n\n        // Vulnerable: error param causes state check to be skipped entirely\n        if (!error \u0026\u0026 state !== expectedState) {\n            res.writeHead(400);\n            res.end(\u0027State mismatch\u0027);\n            console.log(\u0027[-] CSRF attempt blocked.\u0027);\n            return;\n        }\n\n        if (error) {\n            res.writeHead(200);\n            res.end(`Error: ${error}`);\n            console.log(`[!] Server shutting down. Triggered by: ${error}`);\n            server.close();\n            return;\n        }\n    }\n});\n\nserver.listen(12345, \u0027127.0.0.1\u0027, () =\u003e {\n    console.log(\u0027Listening on http://127.0.0.1:12345\u0027);\n});\n```\n\n**Terminal 1 \u2014 start the server:**\n```bash\nnode poc.js\n```\n\n**Terminal 2 \u2014 trigger the bypass:**\n```bash\ncurl \"http://127.0.0.1:12345/callback?error=triggered\"\n```\n\n**Expected result:** Server shuts down immediately. The `state` value was never checked.\n\n---\n\n## Root Cause\n\nThe CSRF protection is conditioned on `!error`, meaning it is silently disabled whenever an `error` parameter is present. The two checks need to be decoupled \u2014 state validation must happen first, independently of any other parameters.\n\n---\n\n## Fix\n\nMove the `state` check before the `error` check, and remove the dependency on `!error`:\n\n```typescript\n// Fixed\nif (state !== oauthState) {\n    cleanup()\n    rejectOnce(new Error(\u0027OAuth state mismatch - possible CSRF attack\u0027))\n    return\n}\n\nif (error) {\n    cleanup()\n    rejectOnce(new Error(errorMessage))\n    return\n}\n```\n\nWith this change, any request \u2014 whether it contains an `error` parameter or not \u2014 must first pass the state validation before any further processing occurs.\n\n---\n\nCredit: Xanlar Agamalizade",
  "id": "GHSA-c73c-x77g-854r",
  "modified": "2026-06-09T10:59:32Z",
  "published": "2026-05-12T15:34:30Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/Gitlawb/openclaude/security/advisories/GHSA-c73c-x77g-854r"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-42073"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/Gitlawb/openclaude/commit/739b8d1f40fde0e401a5cbd2b9a55d88bd5124ad"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/Gitlawb/openclaude"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/Gitlawb/openclaude/releases/tag/v0.5.1"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "OpenClaude MCP OAuth Callback: State Check Bypass via error Param Leads to DoS"
}

GHSA-C73R-H28J-R6H3

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-10-14 15:31 – Updated: 2025-10-31 00:30
VLAI
Details

A cross-site request forgery security issue exists in the product and version listed. The vulnerability stems from missing CSRF checks on the impacted form. This allows for unintended configuration modification if an attacker can convince a logged in admin to visit a crafted link.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-7330"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-352"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-10-14T13:15:39Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "A cross-site request forgery security issue exists in the product and version listed. The vulnerability stems from missing CSRF checks on the impacted form. This allows for unintended configuration modification if an attacker can convince a logged in admin to visit a crafted link.",
  "id": "GHSA-c73r-h28j-r6h3",
  "modified": "2025-10-31T00:30:30Z",
  "published": "2025-10-14T15:31:26Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-7330"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories/advisory.SD1756.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:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/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-C73R-J6J7-MFCH

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-02-07 12:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:33
VLAI
Details

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in ibasit GlobalQuran allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects GlobalQuran: from n/a through 1.0.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-25143"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-352"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-02-07T10:15:19Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in ibasit GlobalQuran allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects GlobalQuran: from n/a through 1.0.",
  "id": "GHSA-c73r-j6j7-mfch",
  "modified": "2026-04-01T18:33:35Z",
  "published": "2025-02-07T12:31:18Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-25143"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/globalquran/vulnerability/wordpress-globalquran-plugin-1-0-csrf-to-settings-change-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-C748-4MFM-3F26

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-11-18 09:30 – Updated: 2025-11-18 09:30
VLAI
Details

The Top Friends plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 0.3. This is due to missing nonce validation on the top_friends_options_subpanel() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify plugin settings via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2025-12827"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-352"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2025-11-18T09:15:49Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "The Top Friends plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 0.3. This is due to missing nonce validation on the top_friends_options_subpanel() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify plugin settings via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.",
  "id": "GHSA-c748-4mfm-3f26",
  "modified": "2025-11-18T09:30:52Z",
  "published": "2025-11-18T09:30:52Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-12827"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/top-friends/tags/0.3/top-friends.php#L155"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/8165196d-0117-473f-8ccf-57ffd3e08e16?source=cve"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

GHSA-C76F-F8V3-9WJ4

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-08-24 12:31 – Updated: 2026-08-24 12:31
VLAI
Details

Unauthenticated Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in Fluent Support Pro <= 2.3.1 versions.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-78279"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-352"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-08-24T12:16:55Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "Unauthenticated Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in Fluent Support Pro \u003c= 2.3.1 versions.",
  "id": "GHSA-c76f-f8v3-9wj4",
  "modified": "2026-08-24T12:31:40Z",
  "published": "2026-08-24T12:31:40Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-78279"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/fluent-support-pro/vulnerability/wordpress-fluent-support-pro-plugin-2-3-1-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:L/I:L/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

Mitigation MIT-4
Architecture and Design

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
Implementation

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
Architecture and Design

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
Architecture and Design

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
Architecture and Design
  • 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
Architecture and Design

Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.

Mitigation
Implementation

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.