| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in polyaxon/polyaxon v2.4.0 allows attackers to perform unauthorized actions in the context of the victim's browser. This includes creating projects, model versions, and artifact versions, or changing settings. The impact of this vulnerability includes potential data loss and service disruption. |
| The Visit Counter plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in version 1.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the widgets.php page. 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. |
| The Top Bar Notification plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.12. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on th tbn_ajax_add() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the plugin's 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. |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery vulnerability in Movistar's 4G router affecting version ES_WLD71-T1_v2.0.201820. This vulnerability allows an attacker to force an end user to execute unwanted actions in a web application in which they are currently authenticated. |
| Websites managed by MegaBIP in versions below 5.15 are vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) as the form available under "/edytor/index.php?id=7,7,0" lacks protection mechanisms.
A user could be tricked into visiting a malicious website, which would send POST request to this endpoint. If the victim is a logged in administrator, this could lead to creation of new accounts and granting of administrative permissions. |
| The EZ SQL Reports Shortcode Widget and DB Backup plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions 4.11.13 to 5.25.08. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the 'ELISQLREPORTS_menu' function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to execute code on the server via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. Version 5.25.10 adds a nonce check, which makes this vulnerability exploitable by admins only. |
| The Zegen Core plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery to Arbitrary File Upload in versions up to, and including, 2.0.1. This is due to missing nonce validation and missing file type validation in the '/custom-font-code/custom-fonts-uploads.php' file. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to upload arbitrary files on the affected site's server which may make remote code execution possible via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. |
| A flaw was found in the Ansible aap-gateway. Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) origin checking is not done on requests from the gateway to external components, such as the controller, hub, and eda. |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF), Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (XSS or 'Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in Wikimedia Foundation Mediawiki - DataTransfer Extension allows Cross Site Request Forgery, Cross-Site Scripting (XSS).This issue affects Mediawiki - DataTransfer Extension: from 1.39.X before 1.39.11, from 1.41.X before 1.41.3, from 1.42.X before 1.42.2. |
| Improper access control in the endpoint /RoleMenuMapping/AddRoleMenu of Digiteam v4.21.0.0 allows authenticated attackers to escalate privileges. |
| Cross-site request forgery vulnerability exists in Web Caster V130 versions 1.08 and earlier. If a logged-in user views a malicious page created by an attacker, the settings of the product may be unintentionally changed. |
| A cross-site request forgery vulnerability exists in Sola Testimonials versions prior to 3.0.0. If this vulnerability is exploited, an attacker allows a user who logs in to the WordPress site where the affected plugin is enabled to access a malicious page. As a result, the user may perform unintended operations on the WordPress site. |
| Apollo Studio Embeddable Explorer & Embeddable Sandbox are website embeddable software solutions from Apollo GraphQL. Prior to Apollo Sandbox version 2.7.2 and Apollo Explorer version 3.7.3, a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability was identified. The vulnerability arises from missing origin validation in the client-side code that handles window.postMessage events. A malicious website can send forged messages to the embedding page, causing the victim’s browser to execute arbitrary GraphQL queries or mutations against their GraphQL server while authenticated with the victim’s cookies. This issue has been patched in Apollo Sandbox version 2.7.2 and Apollo Explorer version 3.7.3. |
| A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability was identified in HCL Glovius Cloud. An attacker can force a user's web browser to execute an unwanted, malicious action on a trusted site where the user is authenticated, specifically on one endpoint. |
| The Construction Light WordPress theme before 1.6.8 does not have authorisation and CSRF when activating via an AJAX action, allowing any authenticated users, such as subscriber to activate arbitrary . |
| Home-Gallery.org is a self-hosted open-source web gallery to browse personal photos and videos. In 1.15.0 and earlier, the default setup of home-gallery is vulnerable to DNS rebinding. Home-gallery is set up without TLS and user authentication by default, leaving it vulnerable to DNS rebinding. In this attack, an attacker will ask a user to visit their website. The attacker website will then change the DNS records of their domain from their IP address to the internal IP address of the home-gallery instance. To tell which IP addresses are valid, we can rebind a subdomain to each IP address we want to check, and see if there is a response. Once potential candidates have been found, the attacker can launch the attack by reading the response of the web server after the IP address has changed. When the attacker domain is fetched, the response will be from the home-gallery instance, not the attacker website, because the IP address has been changed. Due to a lack of authentication, home-gallery photos can then be extracted by the attacker website. |
| The Shield Security – Smart Bot Blocking & Intrusion Prevention Security plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 19.1.13. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the exec function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to disable pin protection for the admin interface of the plugin via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. |
| The WIP Incoming Lite 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 the save_option() 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. |
| In the module "Login as customer PRO" (loginascustomerpro) <1.2.7 from Weblir for PrestaShop, a guest can access direct link to connect to each customer account of the Shop if the module is not installed OR if a secret accessible to administrator is stolen. |
| The ScrollTo Top plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery to Arbitrary File Upload in versions up to, and including, 1.2.2. This is due to missing nonce validation and missing file type validation in the 'options_page' function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to upload arbitrary files on the affected site's server which may make remote code execution possible via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. |
