djangoSIGE through 1.10 (commit a6fe7e8) contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to cancel sales or purchase orders on behalf of authenticated users by exploiting order-c...Show moredjangoSIGE through 1.10 (commit a6fe7e8) contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to cancel sales or purchase orders on behalf of authenticated users by exploiting order-cancellation logic implemented inside HTTP GET method handlers in CancelarOrcamentoVendaView, CancelarPedidoVendaView, CancelarOrcamentoCompraView, and CancelarPedidoCompraView. Attackers can lure an authenticated victim with change_orcamentovenda or equivalent permissions to a page containing a cross-origin reference such as an img tag pointing to the cancellation endpoint, bypassing CSRF token validation entirely since Django's CsrfViewMiddleware only enforces CSRF checks on unsafe HTTP methods.Show less |
Network-AI, a TypeScript/Node.js multi-agent orchestrator, has a shipped, exported, documented feature called `ApprovalInbox` (`lib/approval-inbox.ts`). It is the network surface of the human-in-the-loop Approval Gate, w...Show moreNetwork-AI, a TypeScript/Node.js multi-agent orchestrator, has a shipped, exported, documented feature called `ApprovalInbox` (`lib/approval-inbox.ts`). It is the network surface of the human-in-the-loop Approval Gate, which `ApprovalGate` uses to require explicit human approval for high-risk operations. The HTTP server it exposes has no authentication of any kind and sets `Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *` on every route, including the state-changing `POST /approvals/:id/approve` and `/deny`. As a result, in versions 5.0.0 through 5.12.1, any party who can send an HTTP request to the inbox port — a co-located process, a container/SSRF on the same host, a remote client when the operator binds a non-loopback address, or any website the operator visits in a browser (via the wildcard CORS) — can enumerate pending approvals and approve them, defeating the entire human-in-the-loop control and causing the gated high-risk action (e.g. a shell command the agent was holding for review) to execute without consent. This issue is fixed in v5.12.2. `ApprovalInbox` now accepts a `secret` option. When set, the mutating endpoints `POST /:id/approve` and `POST /:id/deny` require an `Authorization: Bearer <secret>` header, validated in constant time with `crypto.timingSafeEqual`. `startServer()` already binds to `127.0.0.1` by default; operators exposing the inbox on a network must set a secret.Show less |
A CSRF vulnerability exists in the `zone-include.php` script in Revive Adserver 6.0.7. Linking and unlinking banners or campaigns to zones could be triggered via crafted GET or POST requests without any verification of t...Show moreA CSRF vulnerability exists in the `zone-include.php` script in Revive Adserver 6.0.7. Linking and unlinking banners or campaigns to zones could be triggered via crafted GET or POST requests without any verification of the CSRF token, allowing an attacker to perform these actions on behalf of an authenticated administrator.Show less |
dataCycle is a data management system for centrally storing, managing, searching, finding, and distributing data. In dataCycle-CORE, the module handling core processing and framework rules, before and including version 2...Show moredataCycle is a data management system for centrally storing, managing, searching, finding, and distributing data. In dataCycle-CORE, the module handling core processing and framework rules, before and including version 25.07.3, the application exposes server-side state changes through `GET` routes. Because browsers automatically send cookies on same-site top-level navigation and Rails does not apply CSRF protections to `GET`, an attacker can force a logged-in victim to modify application state by embedding a link, image, iframe, or redirect to one of these endpoints. This was confirmed on the target with a normal `Standard` account: a cross-site-style `GET` to `watch_lists/:id/add_item?thing_id=...` inserted content into a watch list with no CSRF token. Additional `GET` mutation routes exist in the codebase, including user impersonation for authorized admins and cache or
translation state changes. This is patched in version 26.06.08.Show less |
The MailerSend WordPress plugin before 1.0.8 does not perform a nonce check on its configuration-delete action (it verifies the manage_options capability but ignores the nonce), so an attacker can trick a logged-in admi...Show moreThe MailerSend WordPress plugin before 1.0.8 does not perform a nonce check on its configuration-delete action (it verifies the manage_options capability but ignores the nonce), so an attacker can trick a logged-in administrator into visiting a crafted page that wipes the MailerSend WordPress plugin before 1.0.8's SMTP configuration and deactivates the MailerSend WordPress plugin before 1.0.8, breaking the site's email delivery.Show less |
A weakness has been identified in geex-arts django-jet up to 1.0.8. Affected is an unknown function of the component OAuth Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to cross-site request forgery. The attack may be perfo...Show moreA weakness has been identified in geex-arts django-jet up to 1.0.8. Affected is an unknown function of the component OAuth Handler. Executing a manipulation can lead to cross-site request forgery. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be used for attacks. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.Show less |
A vulnerability was determined in Sipeed PicoClaw up to 0.2.9. The affected element is an unknown function of the file web/backend/api/auth.go. Executing a manipulation can lead to cross-site request forgery. The attack...Show moreA vulnerability was determined in Sipeed PicoClaw up to 0.2.9. The affected element is an unknown function of the file web/backend/api/auth.go. Executing a manipulation can lead to cross-site request forgery. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be utilized. This patch is called 4b0229351678f479429b8d8b19207757266f246b. Applying a patch is advised to resolve this issue.Show less |
The W3SC Elementor to Zoho CRM plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.2.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the storeInfo function....Show moreThe W3SC Elementor to Zoho CRM plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.2.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the storeInfo function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify the plugin's Zoho CRM integration settings, replacing the configured data center, client ID, client secret, and user email credentials with attacker-controlled values via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.Show less |
Symfony UX is a JavaScript ecosystem for Symfony. From 2.22.0 until 2.36.0 and 3.1.0, Symfony\UX\LiveComponent\EventListener\LiveComponentSubscriber::isLiveComponentRequest() gates #[LiveAction] invocations on Accept: ap...Show moreSymfony UX is a JavaScript ecosystem for Symfony. From 2.22.0 until 2.36.0 and 3.1.0, Symfony\UX\LiveComponent\EventListener\LiveComponentSubscriber::isLiveComponentRequest() gates #[LiveAction] invocations on Accept: application/vnd.live-component+html, but the Accept header is CORS-safelisted and cross-origin fetch() can set it without preflight, allowing forged cross-origin #[LiveAction] requests against a victim session when applications use SameSite=None, credentials: 'include', a permissive cookie policy, or a same-origin pivot. This issue is fixed in versions 2.36.0 and 3.1.0.Show less |
The Joomla extension Events Booking prior version 5.8.0 had an frontend file upload endpoint that lacked CSRF protection. |
grav-plugin-login before 3.8.11 contains a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the login.regenerate2FASecret frontend task, which regenerates and persists a new TOTP secret for the authenticated session us...Show moregrav-plugin-login before 3.8.11 contains a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the login.regenerate2FASecret frontend task, which regenerates and persists a new TOTP secret for the authenticated session user without any anti-CSRF nonce or Origin/Referer check. Because Grav core dispatches the task from the GET 'task:' URI parameter and the default session cookie is SameSite=Lax, an attacker can lure a logged-in victim to an off-site page that performs a top-level GET navigation, rotating the victim's TOTP secret so their enrolled authenticator no longer matches the server, effectively forcing 2FA re-enrollment. Sites configured with session.samesite: Strict are not affected.Show less |
HCL DFXAnalytics is affected by a Missing SameSite Attribute vulnerability. The application fails to set the "SameSite" attribute on session cookies generated during authentication, which could allow a remote attacker to...Show moreHCL DFXAnalytics is affected by a Missing SameSite Attribute vulnerability. The application fails to set the "SameSite" attribute on session cookies generated during authentication, which could allow a remote attacker to execute Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks if additional mitigations, such as Anti-CSRF tokens, are not implemented.Show less |
The Loco Translate plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.8.5. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the execTemplate function. This mak...Show moreThe Loco Translate plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.8.5. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the execTemplate function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary PHP code on the server by supplying a php://filter stream wrapper URI as the 'template' parameter, which bypasses path validation and is passed directly to the include sink in execTemplate() via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.Show less |
The Appointment Booking Plugin WordPress plugin before 5.6.3 does not validate a CSRF nonce on several state-changing actions handled by its central request dispatcher, allowing attackers to perform privileged actions,...Show moreThe Appointment Booking Plugin WordPress plugin before 5.6.3 does not validate a CSRF nonce on several state-changing actions handled by its central request dispatcher, allowing attackers to perform privileged actions, such as overwriting the booking-form configuration or disconnecting the connected payment gateway, via Cross-Site Request Forgery against a logged-in administrator.Show less |
The Landing Page Builder – Coming Soon page, Maintenance Mode, Lead Page, WordPress Landing Pages plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.5.3.6. This is du...Show moreThe Landing Page Builder – Coming Soon page, Maintenance Mode, Lead Page, WordPress Landing Pages plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.5.3.6. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the ulpb_admin_ajax function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to create, update, retitle, or change the post status, slug, and type of arbitrary posts and write ULPB_DATA post meta via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. This attack requires the victim to hold an editor-level or administrator session, as the wp_ajax_ulpb_admin_data action enforces a capability check that the forged request must satisfy by inheriting the logged-in user's session cookies.Show less |
A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the xxl-job-admin web application v.3.0.0 that allows an attacker to perform unauthorized modifications to Glue IDE shell scripts. The affected endpoint lacks p...Show moreA Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the xxl-job-admin web application v.3.0.0 that allows an attacker to perform unauthorized modifications to Glue IDE shell scripts. The affected endpoint lacks proper CSRF token validation and accepts arbitrary HTTP methods via a permissive request mappingShow less |
In Splunk Enterprise versions below 10.4.1, 10.2.5, 10.0.8, and 9.4.13, and Splunk Cloud Platform versions below 10.5.2605.0, 10.4.2604.7, 10.3.2512.16, 10.2.2510.18, and 10.1.2507.24, an attacker could trick a user that...Show moreIn Splunk Enterprise versions below 10.4.1, 10.2.5, 10.0.8, and 9.4.13, and Splunk Cloud Platform versions below 10.5.2605.0, 10.4.2604.7, 10.3.2512.16, 10.2.2510.18, and 10.1.2507.24, an attacker could trick a user that holds a role with the `list_deployment_server` capability into running arbitrary Search Processing Language (SPL) searches on their behalf as `splunk-system-user`, allowing for access to stored credentials and indexed data.<br><br>The vulnerability is possible because Deployment Server endpoints in Splunk Web do not validate Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) tokens on GET requests, and caller-supplied input is not correctly neutralized before it is placed into an SPL search.Show less |
Cross Site Request Forgery vulnerability in andreimarcu linux-server v.1.0 through v.2.3.8 allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code via the uploadPutHandler function |
Mojolicious versions from 4.59 before 9.48 for Perl expose a stable representation of the session CSRF token to a BREACH compression oracle.
_csrf_token generates and caches one token per session and returns the same va...Show moreMojolicious versions from 4.59 before 9.48 for Perl expose a stable representation of the session CSRF token to a BREACH compression oracle.
_csrf_token generates and caches one token per session and returns the same value on every call, and _csrf_field places that value in a hidden `csrf_token` input. When a response carrying the token also echoes attacker-controlled input and is gzip-compressed, the chosen values and the resulting compressed lengths form a BREACH oracle.
An attacker able to query it can recover the token and pass csrf_protect validation.Show less |
Sustainable Irrigation Platform (SIP) through version 5.2.16 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows remote attackers to perform state-changing administrative actions by luring a logged-in adminis...Show moreSustainable Irrigation Platform (SIP) through version 5.2.16 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows remote attackers to perform state-changing administrative actions by luring a logged-in administrator into visiting a malicious page that issues HTTP GET requests without CSRF token validation or origin verification. Attackers can trigger actions such as disabling the passphrase, rebooting the device, deleting programs, or installing plugins, with the default configuration exposing these endpoints to unauthenticated users due to no required passphrase and a default credential of 'opendoor'.Show less |