| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Unauthenticated Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in Post Views Counter <= 1.4.4 versions. |
| Livemarks is a browser extension that provides RSS feed bookmark folders. Versions of Livemarks prior to 3.7 are vulnerable to cross-site request forgery. A malicious website may be able to coerce the extension to send an authenticated GET request to an arbitrary URL. An authenticated request is a request where the cookies of the browser are sent along with the request. The `subscribe.js` script uses the first parameter from the current URL location as the URL of the RSS feed to subscribe to and checks that the RSS feed is valid XML. `subscribe.js` is accessible by an attacker website due to its use in `subscribe.html`, an HTML page that is declared as a `web_accessible_resource` in `manifest.json`. This issue may lead to `Privilege Escalation`. A CSRF breaks the integrity of servers running on a private network. A user of the browser extension may have a private server with dangerous functionality, which is assumed to be safe due to network segmentation. Upon receiving an authenticated request instantiated from an attacker, this integrity is broken. Version 3.7 fixes this issue by removing subscribe.html from `web_accessible_resources`.
|
| A multiple Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the '/members/moremember.pl', and ‘/members/members-home.pl’ endpoints within Koha Library Management System version 23.05.05 and earlier allows malicious staff users to carry out CSRF attacks, including unauthorized changes to usernames and passwords of users visiting the affected page, via the 'Circulation note' and ‘Patrons Restriction’ components. |
| The Responsive Contact Form Builder & Lead Generation Plugin plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.8.9. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on several functions. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to invoke those functions via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. These actions may result in form deletion, and lead signup as well as file upload. |
| ArchivePage.php, UnarchivePage.php, and VoterEligibilityPage#executeClear() do not validate request methods or CSRF tokens, allowing attackers to trigger sensitive actions if an admin visits a malicious site.
This issue affects Mediawiki - SecurePoll extension: from 1.39.X before 1.39.13, from 1.42.X before 1.42.7, from 1.43.X before 1.43.2. |
| In QUIC in RFC 9000, the Latency Spin Bit specification (section 17.4) does not strictly constrain the bit value when the feature is disabled, which might allow remote attackers to construct a covert channel with data represented as changes to the bit value. NOTE: The "Sheridan, S., Keane, A. (2015). In Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security (ECCWS), University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK." paper says "Modern Internet communication protocols provide an almost infinite number of ways in which data can be hidden or embed whithin seemingly normal network traffic." |
| A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the ResetPasswordRequest operation of Zimbra Collaboration (ZCS) when the zimbraFeatureResetPasswordStatus attribute is enabled. An attacker can exploit this by tricking an authenticated user into visiting a malicious webpage that silently sends a crafted SOAP request to reset the user's password. The vulnerability stems from a lack of CSRF token validation on the endpoint, allowing password resets without the user's consent. |
| The WP User Profile Avatar plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.5. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the wpupa_user_admin() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the plugins setting which controls access to the functionality via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. |
| Multiple CSRF attack vectors in JDownloads component 1.0.0-4.0.47 for Joomla were discovered. |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Badi Jones Duplicate Content Cure duplicate-content-cure allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Duplicate Content Cure: from n/a through <= 1.0. |
| FluxCP is a web-based Control Panel for rAthena servers written in PHP. A critical Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the FluxCP-based website template used by multiple rAthena/Ragnarok servers. State-changing POST endpoints accept browser-initiated requests that are authorized solely by the session cookie without per-request anti-CSRF tokens or robust Origin/Referer validation. An attacker who can lure a logged-in user to an attacker-controlled page can cause that user to perform sensitive actions without their intent. This vulnerability is fixed with commit e3f130c. |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in FanBridge FanBridge signup fanbridge-signup allows Stored XSS.This issue affects FanBridge signup: from n/a through <= 0.6. |
| The Linear plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.8.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the 'linear-debug'. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to reset the plugin's cache via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. |
| The Chative Live chat and Chatbot plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the add_chative_widget_action() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to change the channel ID or organization ID via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. This could lead to redirecting the live chat widget to an attacker-controlled channel. |
| The Apptivo Business Site CRM plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 5.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the 'awp_ip_deny' page. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to block IP addresses via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. |
| Improper access control in the endpoint /RoleMenuMapping/AddRoleMenu of Digiteam v4.21.0.0 allows authenticated attackers to escalate privileges. |
| The Wtyczka SeoPilot dla WP plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.3.091. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the SeoPilot_Admin_Options() 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. |
| A vulnerability has been identified in SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1211C AC/DC/Rly (6ES7211-1BE40-0XB0), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1211C DC/DC/DC (6ES7211-1AE40-0XB0), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1211C DC/DC/Rly (6ES7211-1HE40-0XB0), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1212C AC/DC/Rly (6ES7212-1BE40-0XB0), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1212C DC/DC/DC (6ES7212-1AE40-0XB0), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1212C DC/DC/Rly (6ES7212-1HE40-0XB0), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1212FC DC/DC/DC (6ES7212-1AF40-0XB0), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1212FC DC/DC/Rly (6ES7212-1HF40-0XB0), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1214C AC/DC/Rly (6ES7214-1BG40-0XB0), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1214C DC/DC/DC (6ES7214-1AG40-0XB0), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1214C DC/DC/Rly (6ES7214-1HG40-0XB0), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1214FC DC/DC/DC (6ES7214-1AF40-0XB0), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1214FC DC/DC/Rly (6ES7214-1HF40-0XB0), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1215C AC/DC/Rly (6ES7215-1BG40-0XB0), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1215C DC/DC/DC (6ES7215-1AG40-0XB0), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1215C DC/DC/Rly (6ES7215-1HG40-0XB0), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1215FC DC/DC/DC (6ES7215-1AF40-0XB0), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1215FC DC/DC/Rly (6ES7215-1HF40-0XB0), SIMATIC S7-1200 CPU 1217C DC/DC/DC (6ES7217-1AG40-0XB0), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1212 AC/DC/RLY (6AG1212-1BE40-2XB0), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1212 AC/DC/RLY (6AG1212-1BE40-4XB0), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1212 DC/DC/RLY (6AG1212-1HE40-2XB0), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1212 DC/DC/RLY (6AG1212-1HE40-4XB0), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1212C DC/DC/DC (6AG1212-1AE40-2XB0), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1212C DC/DC/DC (6AG1212-1AE40-4XB0), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1212C DC/DC/DC RAIL (6AG2212-1AE40-1XB0), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1214 AC/DC/RLY (6AG1214-1BG40-2XB0), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1214 AC/DC/RLY (6AG1214-1BG40-4XB0), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1214 AC/DC/RLY (6AG1214-1BG40-5XB0), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1214 DC/DC/DC (6AG1214-1AG40-2XB0), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1214 DC/DC/DC (6AG1214-1AG40-4XB0), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1214 DC/DC/DC (6AG1214-1AG40-5XB0), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1214 DC/DC/RLY (6AG1214-1HG40-2XB0), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1214 DC/DC/RLY (6AG1214-1HG40-4XB0), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1214 DC/DC/RLY (6AG1214-1HG40-5XB0), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1214C DC/DC/DC RAIL (6AG2214-1AG40-1XB0), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1214FC DC/DC/DC (6AG1214-1AF40-5XB0), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1214FC DC/DC/RLY (6AG1214-1HF40-5XB0), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1215 AC/DC/RLY (6AG1215-1BG40-2XB0), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1215 AC/DC/RLY (6AG1215-1BG40-4XB0), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1215 AC/DC/RLY (6AG1215-1BG40-5XB0), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1215 DC/DC/DC (6AG1215-1AG40-2XB0), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1215 DC/DC/DC (6AG1215-1AG40-4XB0), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1215 DC/DC/RLY (6AG1215-1HG40-2XB0), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1215 DC/DC/RLY (6AG1215-1HG40-4XB0), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1215 DC/DC/RLY (6AG1215-1HG40-5XB0), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1215C DC/DC/DC (6AG1215-1AG40-5XB0), SIPLUS S7-1200 CPU 1215FC DC/DC/DC (6AG1215-1AF40-5XB0). The web interface of the affected devices is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks. This could allow an unauthenticated attacker to change the CPU mode by tricking a legitimate and authenticated user with sufficient permissions on the target CPU to click on a malicious link. |
| The BP Profile Search plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 5.7.5. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the bps_ajax_field_selector(), bps_ajax_template_options(), and bps_ajax_field_row() functions. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to 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. |
| The web application is not protected against cross-site request forgery attacks. Therefore, an attacker can trick users into performing actions on the application when they visit an attacker-controlled website or click on a malicious link. E.g. an attacker can forge malicious links to reset the admin password or create new users. |
