A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability was discovered in the delete.php endpoint of Jason2605 AdminPanel 4.0. |
The MetaMagic SEO Plugin plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.6. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the metamagic_update_options fu...Show moreThe MetaMagic SEO Plugin plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.6. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the metamagic_update_options function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify the plugin's SEO settings, including enabling or disabling the plugin and toggling description and keyword meta tag output 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 Promoter plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on a function. This makes it possible for u...Show moreThe WP Promoter plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on a 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 |
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities allow attackers to exploit a user's authenticated session to forge cross-site requests, inducing the execution of unintended operations such as tampering with configurati...Show moreCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities allow attackers to exploit a user's authenticated session to forge cross-site requests, inducing the execution of unintended operations such as tampering with configuration data.Show less |
The GoStats for WordPress plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.4. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the gostats_manage() function....Show moreThe GoStats for WordPress plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.4. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the gostats_manage() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the plugin's settings (gostats_siteid and gostats_server options) via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.Show less |
The CDN Linker lite plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 1.3.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the ossdl_off_options() function. This...Show moreThe CDN Linker lite plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 1.3.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the ossdl_off_options() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the plugin's settings — including the CDN URL used to rewrite all static asset references on the site — via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.Show less |
The Search Simple Fields plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 0.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the search_simple_fields_options()...Show moreThe Search Simple Fields plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 0.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the search_simple_fields_options() function in functions_admin.php. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify the plugin's settings — including post types to search in, custom fields, media fields and the custom media function name — via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.Show less |
The auto making JSON-LD plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 4.5.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the amJL_certification functio...Show moreThe auto making JSON-LD plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 4.5.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the amJL_certification function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the plugin's license key option, and subsequently trigger license validation and pro feature installation on the victim site without the administrator's consent via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. Successful exploitation can trigger downstream calls to amJL_is_license_valid() and amJL_download_and_install_pro_features(), meaning the impact extends beyond a simple settings change to unauthorized installation of plugin components.Show less |
The WP AutoBuzz plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.1.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on a function. This makes it possible for...Show moreThe WP AutoBuzz plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.1.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on a 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. This vulnerability bypasses WordPress's DISALLOW_UNFILTERED_HTML protection because the unsanitized value is written directly via update_option at the plugin level, entirely outside of WordPress post content handling.Show less |
The Two-factor authentication (formerly IP Vault) plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the ip...Show moreThe Two-factor authentication (formerly IP Vault) plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the ipv_save_changes function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify the plugin's firewall and two-factor authentication settings — including the operating mode, request include/exclude rules, authentication slug, and log retention period — potentially disabling protection entirely via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.Show less |
The Genzel breadcrumbs plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the _options_page function. This...Show moreThe Genzel breadcrumbs plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the _options_page function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the plugin's breadcrumb configuration, including templates, delimiter, home label, home URI, and breadcrumb rules via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.Show less |
The Old Posts Highlighter plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the OPH_options function. Th...Show moreThe Old Posts Highlighter plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the OPH_options function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the plugin's configuration settings without authorization via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.Show less |
The CM Ad Changer – A simple tool to control and optimize your site's banners plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.0.7. This is due to missing or incorr...Show moreThe CM Ad Changer – A simple tool to control and optimize your site's banners plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.0.7. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the cmac_campaigns_action function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to permanently delete arbitrary advertising campaigns, including their associated banner records and uploaded files via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.Show less |
A security flaw has been discovered in SourceCodester CET Automated Grading System with AI Predictive Analytics 1.0. This affects an unknown function. Performing a manipulation results in cross-site request forgery. The...Show moreA security flaw has been discovered in SourceCodester CET Automated Grading System with AI Predictive Analytics 1.0. This affects an unknown function. Performing a manipulation results in cross-site request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks.Show less |
Lack of CSRF token validation lead to a CSRF attack vector in the admin activation endpoint of com_users. |
e107 is a content management system (CMS). Prior to 2.3.5, e107 CMS does not properly enforce CSRF token validation on comment moderation actions. The problem comes down to how session_handler::check() handles CSRF token...Show moree107 is a content management system (CMS). Prior to 2.3.5, e107 CMS does not properly enforce CSRF token validation on comment moderation actions. The problem comes down to how session_handler::check() handles CSRF tokens. Instead of requiring a token on every state-changing request, it only validates the token if one happens to be present. If there is no token at all, the check is skipped entirely. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.3.5.Show less |
Zohocorp Zoho Mail wordpress plugin is vulnerable to Cross-Site request forgery (CSRF).
This issue affects Zoho Mail wordpress plugin versions before 1.6.2. |
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in bgermann CformsII allows Cross Site Request Forgery.
This issue affects CformsII: from n/a through 15.1.3. |
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Convers Lab WPSubscription allows Cross Site Request Forgery.
This issue affects WPSubscription: from n/a through 1.9.1. |
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in WpDevArt Organization chart allows Cross Site Request Forgery.
This issue affects Organization chart: from n/a through 1.7.5. |