| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| SAP Commerce, by default, sets certain cookies with the SameSite attribute configured to None (SameSite=None). This includes authentication cookies utilized in SAP Commerce Backoffice. Applying this setting reduces defense in depth against CSRF and may lead to future compatibility issues. |
| Websites managed by MegaBIP in versions below 5.15 are vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) as the form available under "/edytor/index.php?id=7,7,0" lacks protection mechanisms.
A user could be tricked into visiting a malicious website, which would send POST request to this endpoint. If the victim is a logged in administrator, this could lead to creation of new accounts and granting of administrative permissions. |
| Disk Pulse Enterprise v10.4.18 has an authenticated reflected XSS vulnerability in the '/monitor_directory?sid=' endpoint, caused by insufficient validation of the 'monitor_directory' parameter sent by POST. An attacker could exploit this weakness to send malicious content to an authenticated user and steal information from their session. |
| The Custom Product List Table plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.0.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation when modifying products. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to add, delete, bulk edit, approve or cancel products via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. |
| A CSRF issue was discovered in the administrative web GUI in Blu-Castle BCUM221E 1.0.0P220507. This can be exploited via a URL, an image load, an XMLHttpRequest, etc. and can result in exposure of data or unintended code execution. |
| In the OAuth library for nim prior to version 0.11, the `state` values generated by the `generateState` function do not have sufficient entropy. These can be successfully guessed by an attacker allowing them to perform a CSRF vs a user, associating the user's session with the attacker's protected resources. While `state` isn't exactly a cryptographic value, it should be generated in a cryptographically secure way. `generateState` should be using a CSPRNG. Version 0.11 modifies the `generateState` function to generate `state` values of at least 128 bits of entropy while using a CSPRNG. |
| birkir prime <= 0.4.0.beta.0 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability in its GraphQL endpoint that allows attackers to exploit GET-based query requests. Attackers can craft malicious GET requests to trigger unauthorized actions against privileged users by manipulating GraphQL query parameters. |
| In the OAuth library for nim prior to version 0.11, the Authorization Code grant and Implicit grant both rely on the `state` parameter to prevent cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks where a resource owner might have their session associated with protected resources belonging to an attacker. When this project is compiled with certain compiler flags set, it is possible that the `state` parameter will not be checked at all, creating a CSRF vulnerability. Version 0.11 checks the `state` parameter using a regular `if` statement or `doAssert` instead of relying on a plain `assert`. `doAssert` will achieve the desired behavior even if `-d:danger` or `--assertions:off` is set. |
| The Torod – The smart shipping and delivery portal for e-shops and retailers plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.9. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the save_settings function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify plugin's settings via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. |
| The KuWFi 4G LTE AC900 router 1.0.13 is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) on its web management interface. This vulnerability allows an attacker to trick an authenticated admin user into performing unauthorized actions, such as exploiting a command injection vulnerability in /goform/formMultiApnSetting. Successful exploitation can also lead to unauthorized configuration changes. |
| The Joli FAQ SEO – WordPress FAQ Plugin plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.3.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation when saving settings. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to change the plugin's settings via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. |
| binux pyspider up to v0.3.10 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via the Flask endpoints. |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Martin Gibson WP GoToWebinar allows Cross-Site Scripting (XSS).This issue affects WP GoToWebinar: from n/a through 15.7. |
| The Related Posts, Inline Related Posts, Contextual Related Posts, Related Content By PickPlugins plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including 2.0.59. This is due to missing nonce validation on a function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject malicious web scripts via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. |
| A vulnerability was found in SMI SMI-EX-5414W up to 1.0.03. It has been classified as problematic. This affects an unknown part of the component Web Interface. The manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The associated identifier of this vulnerability is VDB-260907. |
| Cross site request forgery in Kiteworks OwnCloud allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge requests.
If a request has no Authorization header, it is created with an empty string as value by a rewrite rule. The CSRF check is done by comparing the header value to null, meaning that the existing CSRF check is bypassed in this case. An attacker can, for example, create a new administrator account if the request is executed in the browser of an authenticated victim. |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF), Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (XSS or 'Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in Muhammad Rehman Contact Form 7 Summary and Print allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Contact Form 7 Summary and Print: from n/a through 1.2.5. |
| Improper access control in the endpoint /RoleMenuMapping/AddRoleMenu of Digiteam v4.21.0.0 allows authenticated attackers to escalate privileges. |
| IBM Operations Analytics – Log Analysis versions 1.3.5.0 through 1.3.8.3 and IBM SmartCloud Analytics – Log Analysis are vulnerable to a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability that could allow an attacker to trick a trusted user into performing unauthorized actions. |
| The Privacy Policy Generator, Terms & Conditions Generator WordPress Plugin : WP Legal Pages plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.2.6. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the 'create_popup_delete_process' function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to delete popups via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. |
