| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| The Appsero Helper plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.3.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the 'appsero_helper' 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 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. |
| Ubee EVW327 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to enable remote access without user interaction. Attackers can craft a malicious webpage that automatically submits a form to change router remote access settings to port 8080 without the user's consent. |
| IBM Operations Analytics – Log Analysis versions 1.3.5.0 through 1.3.8.3 and IBM SmartCloud Analytics – Log Analysis are vulnerable to a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability that could allow an attacker to trick a trusted user into performing unauthorized actions. |
| 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`.
|
| Permissive Cross-domain Policy with Untrusted Domains vulnerability in local API server of DestinyECM solution(versions described below) which is developed and maintained by Cyberdigm may allow Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attack, which probabilistically enables JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking) via forgery web page.* Due to product customization, version information may differ from the following version description. For further inquiries, please contact the vendor. |
| The Stop Spammers Security | Block Spam Users, Comments, Forms plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2024.4. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the sfs_process AJAX action. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to add arbitrary IPs to the plugin's allowlist and blocklist 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 (CSRF) vulnerability in FameThemes FameTheme Demo Importer.This issue affects FameTheme Demo Importer: from n/a through 1.1.5. |
| 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." |
| The News Wall plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.1.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the nwap_newslist_page() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the plugin's settings and modify news lists 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 (CSRF) vulnerability in CRM Perks Integration for Contact Form 7 and Salesforce.This issue affects Integration for Contact Form 7 and Salesforce: from n/a through 1.3.9. |
| Maian Support Helpdesk 4.3 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to create administrative accounts without authentication. Attackers can craft malicious HTML forms to add admin users and upload PHP files with unrestricted file upload capabilities through the FAQ attachment system. |
| The ViewMedica 9 plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.4.15. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the 'Viewmedica-Admin' page. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary SQL queries via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. |
| The Short URL plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 1.6.8. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the configuration_page function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to add and import redirects, including comments containing cross-site scripting as detailed in CVE-2023-1602, granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. |
| The ShopSite plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.5.10. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on a 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. |
| Ecessa ShieldLink SL175EHQ 10.7.4 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to create administrative user accounts without authentication. Attackers can craft a malicious web page with a hidden form to add a superuser account by tricking a logged-in administrator into loading the page. |
| The Contests by Rewards Fuel plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.0.62. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the ajax_handler() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the plugin's settings and inject malicious JavaScript via a forged request granted they can trick a site's user with the edit_posts capability into performing an action such as clicking on a link. |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in TvRock 0.9t8a. If a logged-in user of TVRock accesses a specially crafted page, unintended operations may be performed. Note that the developer was unreachable, therefore, users should consider stop using TvRock 0.9t8a. |
| Ecessa WANWorx WVR-30 versions before 10.7.4 contain a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to perform administrative actions without request validation. Attackers can craft a malicious web page with a hidden form to create a new superuser account by tricking an authenticated administrator into loading the page. |
| The Kademlia DHT (go-libp2p-kad-dht 0.20.0 and earlier) used in IPFS (0.18.1 and earlier) assigns routing information for content (i.e., information about who holds the content) to be stored by peers whose peer IDs have a small DHT distance from the content ID. This allows an attacker to censor content by generating many Sybil peers whose peer IDs have a small distance from the content ID, thus hijacking the content resolution process. |
