Export limit exceeded: 10954 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (10954 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2011-1341 | 1 Aimluck | 2 Aipo, Aipo-asp | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Aimluck Aipo before 4.0.4.0, and Aipo for ASP before 4.0.4.0, allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that modify data. | ||||
| CVE-2013-2702 | 2 Thulasidas, Wordpress | 2 Easy-adsense-lite, Wordpress | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the Easy AdSense Lite plugin before 6.10 for WordPress allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests that modify this plugin's settings. | ||||
| CVE-2013-2696 | 2 Crunchify, Wordpress | 2 All-in-on-webmaster, Wordpress | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the All in One Webmaster plugin before 8.2.4 for WordPress allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests that insert XSS sequences. | ||||
| CVE-2012-5891 | 1 Dalbum | 1 Dalbum | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in photo/pass.php in DAlbum 1.44 build 174 and earlier allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that (1) add a user via an add action, (2) change user passwords via a change action, or (3) delete a user via a delete action. | ||||
| CVE-2011-1325 | 1 Lockon | 1 Ec-cube | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in EC-CUBE before 2.11.0 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims via unknown vectors. | ||||
| CVE-2013-5696 | 1 Glpi-project | 1 Glpi | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| inc/central.class.php in GLPI before 0.84.2 does not attempt to make install/install.php unavailable after an installation is completed, which allows remote attackers to conduct cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks, and (1) perform a SQL injection via an Etape_4 action or (2) execute arbitrary PHP code via an update_1 action. | ||||
| CVE-2013-7043 | 1 Cisco | 4 Scientific Atlanta Dpr2325, Scientific Atlanta Dpr2325 Firmware, Scientific Atlanta Dpr\/epr2320 and 1 more | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities on Cisco Scientific Atlanta DPR2320R2 routers with software 2.0.2r1262-090417 allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that (1) change a password via the Password parameter to goform/RgSecurity; (2) reboot the device via the Restart parameter to goform/restart; (3) modify Wi-Fi settings, as demonstrated by the WpaPreSharedKey parameter to goform/wlanSecurity; or (4) modify parental controls via the ParentalPassword parameter to goform/RgParentalBasic. | ||||
| CVE-2011-0696 | 1 Djangoproject | 1 Django | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| Django 1.1.x before 1.1.4 and 1.2.x before 1.2.5 does not properly validate HTTP requests that contain an X-Requested-With header, which makes it easier for remote attackers to conduct cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks via forged AJAX requests that leverage a "combination of browser plugins and redirects," a related issue to CVE-2011-0447. | ||||
| CVE-2010-1244 | 1 Apache | 1 Activemq | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in createDestination.action in Apache ActiveMQ before 5.3.1 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims for requests that create queues via the JMSDestination parameter in a queue action. | ||||
| CVE-2012-1220 | 1 Devincentiis | 1 Gazie | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in modules/config/admin_utente.php in GAzie 5.20 and earlier allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that change account information via an update action, as demonstrated by changing the password. | ||||
| CVE-2011-1397 | 1 Ibm | 6 Maximo Asset Management, Maximo Asset Management Essentials, Maximo Service Desk and 3 more | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the Labor Reporting page in IBM Maximo Asset Management and Asset Management Essentials 6.2, 7.1, and 7.5; IBM Tivoli Asset Management for IT 6.2, 7.1, and 7.2; IBM Tivoli Service Request Manager 7.1 and 7.2; IBM Maximo Service Desk 6.2; and IBM Tivoli Change and Configuration Management Database (CCMDB) 6.2, 7.1, and 7.2 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users. | ||||
| CVE-2011-2908 | 1 Redhat | 6 Jboss Enterprise Application Platform, Jboss Enterprise Brms Platform, Jboss Enterprise Portal Platform and 3 more | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the JMX Console (jmx-console) in JBoss Enterprise Portal Platform before 5.2.2, BRMS Platform 5.3.0 before roll up patch1, and SOA Platform 5.3.0 allows remote authenticated users to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests that perform operations on MBeans and possibly execute arbitrary code via unspecified vectors. | ||||
| CVE-2011-1545 | 1 Hp | 1 Insight Control Performance Management | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in HP Insight Control Performance Management before 6.3 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims via unknown vectors. | ||||
| CVE-2013-7256 | 1 Opsview | 1 Opsview | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Opsview before 4.4.2 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims via unknown vectors. | ||||
| CVE-2011-1905 | 1 Proofpoint | 2 Messaging Security Gateway, Protection Server | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in unspecified administrative modules in Proofpoint Messaging Security Gateway 6.2.0.263:6.2.0.237 and earlier in Proofpoint Protection Server 5.5.3, 5.5.4, 5.5.5, 6.0.2, 6.1.1, and 6.2.0 allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators via unknown vectors. | ||||
| CVE-2010-0785 | 1 Ibm | 1 Websphere Application Server | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the Administrative Console in IBM WebSphere Application Server (WAS) 6.1 before 6.1.0.35 and 7.0 before 7.0.0.13 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims via unknown vectors. | ||||
| CVE-2011-2191 | 1 Cherokee-project | 1 Cherokee | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Cherokee-admin in Cherokee before 1.2.99 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that insert cross-site scripting (XSS) sequences, as demonstrated by a crafted nickname field to vserver/apply. | ||||
| CVE-2010-0153 | 1 Ibm | 2 Proventia Network Mail Security System Virtual Appliance, Proventia Network Mail Security System Virtual Appliance Firmware | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in the Local Management Interface (LMI) on the IBM Proventia Network Mail Security System (PNMSS) appliance with firmware before 2.5.0.2 allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that (1) change settings or (2) conduct denial of service attacks. | ||||
| CVE-2009-4906 | 1 Accscripts | 1 Acc Php Email | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in index.php in Acc PHP eMail 1.1 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that change passwords. | ||||
| CVE-2007-6752 | 1 Drupal | 1 Drupal | 2025-04-11 | N/A |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Drupal 7.12 and earlier allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests that end a session via the user/logout URI. NOTE: the vendor disputes the significance of this issue, by considering the "security benefit against platform complexity and performance impact" and concluding that a change to the logout behavior is not planned because "for most sites it is not worth the trade-off. | ||||