Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Igor Jerosimić I Order Terms i-order-terms allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects I Order Terms: from n/a through <= 1.5.0. |
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Syed Balkhi Giveaways and Contests by RafflePress rafflepress allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Giveaways and Contests by RafflePress: from n/a throug...Show moreCross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Syed Balkhi Giveaways and Contests by RafflePress rafflepress allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Giveaways and Contests by RafflePress: from n/a through <= 1.12.20.Show less |
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Craig Hewitt Seriously Simple Podcasting seriously-simple-podcasting allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Seriously Simple Podcasting: from n/a through <...Show moreCross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Craig Hewitt Seriously Simple Podcasting seriously-simple-podcasting allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Seriously Simple Podcasting: from n/a through <= 3.13.0.Show less |
The Custom Post Type plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0. This is due to missing nonce validation on the custom post type deletion functionality. Thi...Show moreThe Custom Post Type plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0. This is due to missing nonce validation on the custom post type deletion functionality. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to delete custom post types via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.Show less |
The AuthorSure plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the 'authorsure' page. This makes it poss...Show moreThe AuthorSure plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the 'authorsure' page. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update settings and 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.Show less |
Cross-site request forgery vulnerability exists in LogStare Collector. If a user views a crafted page while logged, unintended operations may be performed. |
A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability was identified in HCL Glovius Cloud. An attacker can force a user's web browser to execute an unwanted, malicious action on a trusted site where the user is authenticated...Show moreA Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability was identified in HCL Glovius Cloud. An attacker can force a user's web browser to execute an unwanted, malicious action on a trusted site where the user is authenticated, specifically on one endpoint.Show less |
The SureForms plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery Bypass in all versions up to, and including, 1.13.1. This is due to the plugin distributing generic WordPress REST API nonces (wp_rest) to un...Show moreThe SureForms plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery Bypass in all versions up to, and including, 1.13.1. This is due to the plugin distributing generic WordPress REST API nonces (wp_rest) to unauthenticated users via the 'wp_ajax_nopriv_rest-nonce' action. While the plugin legitimately needs to support unauthenticated form submissions, it incorrectly uses generic REST nonces instead of form-specific nonces. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to bypass CSRF protection on REST API endpoints that rely solely on nonce verification without additional authentication checks, allowing them to trigger unauthorized actions such as the plugin's own post-submission hooks and potentially other plugins' REST endpoints.Show less |
A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the manage-students.php component of PHPGurukul Student Record System v3.2 allows an attacker to trick an authenticated administrator into submitting a forged request....Show moreA Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the manage-students.php component of PHPGurukul Student Record System v3.2 allows an attacker to trick an authenticated administrator into submitting a forged request. This leads to the unauthorized deletion of user accounts, causing a Denial of Service (DoS).Show less |
Windu CMS is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in file uploading functionality. Malicious attacker can craft special website, which when visited by the victim, will automatically send malicious file to the server....Show moreWindu CMS is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in file uploading functionality. Malicious attacker can craft special website, which when visited by the victim, will automatically send malicious file to the server.
Only version 4.1 was tested and confirmed as vulnerable.
This issue was fixed in version 4.1 build 2250.Show less |
Windu CMS is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in user editing functionality. Malicious attacker can craft special website, which when visited by the victim, will automatically send POST request that deletes given...Show moreWindu CMS is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in user editing functionality. Malicious attacker can craft special website, which when visited by the victim, will automatically send POST request that deletes given user.
Only version 4.1 was tested and confirmed as vulnerable.
This issue was fixed in version 4.1 build 2250.Show less |
Windu CMS is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in user editing functionality. Implemented CSRF protection mechanism can be bypassed by using CSRF token of other user. It is worth noting that the registration is op...Show moreWindu CMS is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in user editing functionality. Implemented CSRF protection mechanism can be bypassed by using CSRF token of other user. It is worth noting that the registration is open and anyone can create an account.
Only version 4.1 was tested and confirmed as vulnerable.
This issue was fixed in version 4.1 build 2250.Show less |
A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in multiple WSO2 products due to the use of the HTTP GET method for state-changing operations within admin services, specifically in the event processor of the Car...Show moreA Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in multiple WSO2 products due to the use of the HTTP GET method for state-changing operations within admin services, specifically in the event processor of the Carbon console. Although the SameSite=Lax cookie attribute is used as a mitigation, it is ineffective in this context because it allows cookies to be sent with cross-origin top-level navigations using GET requests.
A malicious actor can exploit this vulnerability by tricking an authenticated user into visiting a crafted link, leading the browser to issue unintended state-changing requests. Successful exploitation could result in unauthorized operations such as data modification, account changes, or other administrative actions. According to WSO2 Secure Production Guidelines, exposure of Carbon console services to untrusted networks is discouraged, which may reduce the impact in properly secured deployments.Show less |
The Coil Web Monetization plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.0.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the coil-get-css-selector pa...Show moreThe Coil Web Monetization plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.0.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the coil-get-css-selector parameter handling in the maybe_restrict_content function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to trigger CSS selector detection functionality via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.Show less |
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 mak...Show moreThe 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 less |
The Project Honey Pot Spam Trap plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the printAdminPage() f...Show moreThe Project Honey Pot Spam Trap plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the printAdminPage() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update settings and 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.Show less |
The Like-it plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the likeit_conf() function. This makes it po...Show moreThe Like-it plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the likeit_conf() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update settings and 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.Show less |
The WP Admin Microblog plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.1.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the 'wp-admin-microblog' page....Show moreThe WP Admin Microblog plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.1.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the 'wp-admin-microblog' page. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to send messages on behalf of an administrator via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.Show less |
Multiple CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) |
TenderDocTransfer developed by Chunghwa Telecom has a Arbitrary File Copy and Paste vulnerability. The application sets up a simple local web server and provides APIs for communication with the target website. Due to th...Show moreTenderDocTransfer developed by Chunghwa Telecom has a Arbitrary File Copy and Paste vulnerability. The application sets up a simple local web server and provides APIs for communication with the target website. Due to the lack of CSRF protection in the APIs, unauthenticated remote attackers could use these APIs through phishing. Additionally, one of the APIs contains an Absolute Path Traversal vulnerability. Attackers can copy arbitrary files on the user's system and paste them into any path, which poses a potential risk of information leakage or could consume hard drive space by copying files in large volumes.Show less |