| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| 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. |
| The Easy Property Listings WordPress plugin before 3.5.4 does not have CSRF check when deleting contacts in bulk, which could allow attackers to make a logged in admin delete them via a CSRF attack |
| FrogCMS V0.9.5 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability via /admin/?/plugin/file_manager/delete/123 |
| FrogCMS v0.9.5 was discovered to contain a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via /admin/?/user/add |
| A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in lunary-ai/lunary version 1.2.34 due to overly permissive CORS settings. This vulnerability allows an attacker to sign up for and create projects or use the instance as if they were a user with local access. The main attack vector is for instances hosted locally on personal machines, which are not publicly accessible. The CORS settings in the backend permit all origins, exposing unauthenticated endpoints to CSRF attacks. |
