| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Certain switch models from PLANET Technology have a web application that is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF). An unauthenticated remote attacker can trick a user into visiting a malicious website, allowing the attacker to impersonate the user and perform actions on their behalf, such as creating accounts. |
| Cross site request forgery in Kiteworks OwnCloud allows an unauthenticated attacker to forge requests.
If a request has no Authorization header, it is created with an empty string as value by a rewrite rule. The CSRF check is done by comparing the header value to null, meaning that the existing CSRF check is bypassed in this case. An attacker can, for example, create a new administrator account if the request is executed in the browser of an authenticated victim. |
| A security vulnerability in HPE IceWall Agent products could be exploited remotely to cause a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in the login flow. |
| A vulnerability in the web UI feature of Cisco IOS Software and Cisco IOS XE Software could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to conduct a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attack on an affected system through the web UI.
This vulnerability is due to incorrectly accepting configuration changes through the HTTP GET method. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by persuading a currently authenticated administrator to follow a crafted link. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to change the configuration of the affected device. |
| Strawberry GraphQL is a library for creating GraphQL APIs. Prior to version 0.243.0, multipart file upload support as defined in the GraphQL multipart request specification was enabled by default in all Strawberry HTTP view integrations. This made all Strawberry HTTP view integrations vulnerable to cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks if users did not explicitly enable CSRF preventing security mechanism for their servers. Additionally, the Django HTTP view integration, in particular, had an exemption for Django's built-in CSRF protection (i.e., the `CsrfViewMiddleware` middleware) by default. In affect, all Strawberry integrations were vulnerable to CSRF attacks by default. Version `v0.243.0` is the first `strawberry-graphql` including a patch. |
| The blogintroduction-wordpress-plugin WordPress plugin through 0.3.0 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 |
| A “CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)” can be exploited by remote attackers to perform state-changing operations with administrative privileges by luring authenticated victims into visiting a malicious web page. |
| The infolinks Ad Wrap WordPress plugin through 1.0.2 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 Favicon Generator (CLOSED) WordPress plugin before 2.1 does not validate files to be uploaded and does not have CSRF checks, which could allow attackers to make logged in admin upload arbitrary files such as PHP on the server |
| The Favicon Generator (CLOSED) WordPress plugin before 2.1 does not have CSRF and path validation in the output_sub_admin_page_0() function, allowing attackers to make logged in admins delete arbitrary files on the server |
| The Misiek Photo Album WordPress plugin through 1.4.3 does not have CSRF checks in some places, which could allow attackers to make logged in users delete arbitrary albums via a CSRF attack |
| The Vikinghammer Tweet WordPress plugin through 0.2.4 does not have CSRF check in some places, and is missing sanitisation as well as escaping, which could allow attackers to make logged in admin add Stored XSS payloads via a CSRF attack. |
| The Special Feed Items WordPress plugin through 1.0.1 does not have CSRF check in some places, and is missing sanitisation as well as escaping, which could allow attackers to make logged in admin add Stored XSS payloads via a CSRF attack. |
| The Enhanced Search Box WordPress plugin through 0.6.1 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 Accordion Image Menu WordPress plugin through 3.1.3 does not have CSRF check in some places, and is missing sanitisation as well as escaping, which could allow attackers to make logged in admin add Stored XSS payloads via a CSRF attack. |
| The Posts reminder WordPress plugin through 0.20 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 ILC Thickbox 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 Review Ratings WordPress plugin through 1.6 does not have CSRF check in some places, and is missing sanitisation as well as escaping, which could allow attackers to make logged in admin add Stored XSS payloads via a CSRF attack. |
| The Gixaw Chat WordPress plugin through 1.0 does not have CSRF check in some places, and is missing sanitisation as well as escaping, which could allow attackers to make logged in admin add Stored XSS payloads via a CSRF attack. |
| This vulnerability exists in the Apex Softcell LD Geo due to improper validation of the transaction token ID in the API endpoint. An authenticated remote attacker could exploit this vulnerability by manipulating the transaction token ID in the API request leading to unauthorized access and modification of transactions belonging to other users. |
