| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| SOCA Access Control System 180612 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to perform administrative actions without proper request validation. Attackers can craft malicious web pages that submit forged requests to create admin accounts by tricking logged-in users into visiting a malicious site. |
| The NewsBlogger theme for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions 0.2.5.6 to 0.2.6.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the newsblogger_install_and_activate_plugin() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to upload arbitrary files and achieve remote code execution via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. This is due to a reverted fix of CVE-2025-1305. |
| VaeMendis - CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Martin Gibson WP GoToWebinar allows Cross-Site Scripting (XSS).This issue affects WP GoToWebinar: from n/a through 15.7. |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Uploadcare Uploadcare File Uploader and Adaptive Delivery (beta) uploadcare.This issue affects Uploadcare File Uploader and Adaptive Delivery (beta): from n/a through 3.0.11. |
| The dejure.org Vernetzungsfunktion plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.97.5. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the djo_einstellungen_menue() 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. |
| The Pricing Table plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.0.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the ajax() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to perform a variety of actions related to managing pricing tables 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 Smartvista BackOffice SmartVista Suite 2.2.22 via crafted GET request. |
| 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 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 . |
| SmartHouse Webapp 6.5.33 contains multiple cross-site request forgery and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities that allow attackers to perform unauthorized actions. Attackers can exploit these vulnerabilities by tricking logged-in users into visiting malicious websites or injecting malicious scripts into various application parameters. |
| 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. |
| 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." |
| TableProgressTracking is a MediaWiki extension to track progress against specific criterion. Versions 1.2.0 and below do not enforce CSRF token validation in the REST API. As a result, an attacker could craft a malicious webpage that, when visited by an authenticated user on a wiki with the extension enabled, would trigger unintended authenticated actions through the victim's browser. Due to the lack of token validation, an attacker can delete or track progress against tables. This issue is patched in version 1.2.1 of the extension. |
| A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in the component /endpoints/currency/currency of Wallos v4.1.1 allows attackers to execute arbitrary operations via a crafted GET request. |
| Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in savignano S/Notify before 4.0.2 for Confluence allows attackers to manipulate a user's S/MIME certificate of PGP key via malicious link or email. |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Angel Costa WP SEO Search wp-seo-search allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects WP SEO Search: from n/a through <= 1.1. |
| In the OAuth library for nim prior to version 0.11, the `state` values generated by the `generateState` function do not have sufficient entropy. These can be successfully guessed by an attacker allowing them to perform a CSRF vs a user, associating the user's session with the attacker's protected resources. While `state` isn't exactly a cryptographic value, it should be generated in a cryptographically secure way. `generateState` should be using a CSPRNG. Version 0.11 modifies the `generateState` function to generate `state` values of at least 128 bits of entropy while using a CSPRNG. |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in FameThemes FameTheme Demo Importer.This issue affects FameTheme Demo Importer: from n/a through 1.1.5. |
| The Pulsating Chat Button plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.4.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the amin_chat_button_settings_page() 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. |
