The GiveWP plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 2.33.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the give_stripe_disconnect_connect_stripe_acco...Show moreThe GiveWP plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 2.33.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the give_stripe_disconnect_connect_stripe_account function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to deactivate the plugin's stripe integration 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 GiveWP plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 2.33.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the give_sendwp_disconnect function. This make...Show moreThe GiveWP plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 2.33.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the give_sendwp_disconnect function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to deactivate the SendWP plugin via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.Show less |
The GiveWP plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 2.33.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the give_sendwp_remote_install_handler functio...Show moreThe GiveWP plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 2.33.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the give_sendwp_remote_install_handler function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to install and activate the SendWP plugin 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 2FA – Two-factor authentication for WordPress plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.5.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on t...Show moreThe WP 2FA – Two-factor authentication for WordPress plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.5.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the send_backup_codes_email function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to send emails with arbitrary content to registered users via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator or other registered user into performing an action such as clicking on a link. While a nonce check is present, it is only executed if a nonce is set. By omitting a nonce from the request, the check can be bypassed.Show less |
The WP Register Profile With Shortcode plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 3.5.9. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the update_password...Show moreThe WP Register Profile With Shortcode plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 3.5.9. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the update_password_validate function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to reset a user's password via a forged request granted they can trick the user into performing an action such as clicking on a link.Show less |
A Cross-site request forgery vulnerability exists in ipa/session/login_password in all supported versions of IPA. This flaw allows an attacker to trick the user into submitting a request that could perform actions as the...Show moreA Cross-site request forgery vulnerability exists in ipa/session/login_password in all supported versions of IPA. This flaw allows an attacker to trick the user into submitting a request that could perform actions as the user, resulting in a loss of confidentiality and system integrity. During community penetration testing it was found that for certain HTTP end-points FreeIPA does not ensure CSRF protection. Due to implementation details one cannot use this flaw for reflection of a cookie representing already logged-in user. An attacker would always have to go through a new authentication attempt.Show less |
The vulnerability allows a remote attacker to delete arbitrary files on the file system via a crafted URL or HTTP
request through a victim’s session. |
An issue was discovered in savignano S/Notify before 4.0.2 for Confluence. While an administrative user is logged on, the configuration settings of S/Notify can be modified via a CSRF attack. The injection could be initi...Show moreAn issue was discovered in savignano S/Notify before 4.0.2 for Confluence. While an administrative user is logged on, the configuration settings of S/Notify can be modified via a CSRF attack. The injection could be initiated by the administrator clicking a malicious link in an email or by visiting a malicious website. If executed while an administrator is logged on to Confluence, an attacker could exploit this to modify the configuration of the S/Notify app on that host. This can, in particular, lead to email notifications being no longer encrypted when they should be.Show less |
An issue was discovered in savignano S/Notify before 2.0.1 for Bitbucket. While an administrative user is logged on, the configuration settings of S/Notify can be modified via a CSRF attack. The injection could be initia...Show moreAn issue was discovered in savignano S/Notify before 2.0.1 for Bitbucket. While an administrative user is logged on, the configuration settings of S/Notify can be modified via a CSRF attack. The injection could be initiated by the administrator clicking a malicious link in an email or by visiting a malicious website. If executed while an administrator is logged on to Bitbucket, an attacker could exploit this to modify the configuration of the S/Notify app on that host. This can, in particular, lead to email notifications being no longer encrypted when they should be.Show less |
An issue was discovered in savignano S/Notify before 4.0.2 for Jira. While an administrative user is logged on, the configuration settings of S/Notify can be modified via a CSRF attack. The injection could be initiated b...Show moreAn issue was discovered in savignano S/Notify before 4.0.2 for Jira. While an administrative user is logged on, the configuration settings of S/Notify can be modified via a CSRF attack. The injection could be initiated by the administrator clicking a malicious link in an email or by visiting a malicious website. If executed while an administrator is logged on to Jira, an attacker could exploit this to modify the configuration of the S/Notify app on that host. This can, in particular, lead to email notifications being no longer encrypted when they should be.Show less |
The Metform Elementor Contact Form Builder plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.8.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the content...Show moreThe Metform Elementor Contact Form Builder plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.8.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the contents function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the options "mf_hubsopt_token", "mf_hubsopt_refresh_token", "mf_hubsopt_token_type", and "mf_hubsopt_expires_in" via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. This would allow an attacker to connect their own Hubspot account to a victim site's metform to obtain leads and contacts.Show less |
FlyCms v1.0 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via the component system/site/webconfig_updagte. |
FlyCms v1.0 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via the component /system/site/config_footer_updagte. |
FlyCms v1.0 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via the component /system/site/userconfig_updagte. |
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Yevhen Kotelnytskyi JS & CSS Script Optimizer.This issue affects JS & CSS Script Optimizer: from n/a through 0.3.3. |
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF), Deserialization of Untrusted Data vulnerability in Repute Infosystems ARMember – Membership Plugin, Content Restriction, Member Levels, User Profile & User signup.This issue affects ARM...Show moreCross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF), Deserialization of Untrusted Data vulnerability in Repute Infosystems ARMember – Membership Plugin, Content Restriction, Member Levels, User Profile & User signup.This issue affects ARMember – Membership Plugin, Content Restriction, Member Levels, User Profile & User signup: n/a.Show less |
The CommentTweets WordPress plugin through 0.6 does not have CSRF checks in some places, which could allow attackers to make logged in users perform unwanted actions via CSRF attacks |
The WP Blogs' Planetarium WordPress plugin through 1.0 does not have CSRF check in place when updating its settings, which could allow attackers to make a logged in admin change them via a CSRF attack |
The WP VR WordPress plugin before 8.3.15 does not authorisation and CSRF in a function hooked to admin_init, allowing unauthenticated users to downgrade the plugin, thus leading to Reflected or Stored XSS, as previous ve...Show moreThe WP VR WordPress plugin before 8.3.15 does not authorisation and CSRF in a function hooked to admin_init, allowing unauthenticated users to downgrade the plugin, thus leading to Reflected or Stored XSS, as previous versions have such vulnerabilities.Show less |
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Automattic WooCommerce.This issue affects WooCommerce: from n/a through 8.2.2. |