| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| A Cross-Site Request Forgery issue was discovered in OSIsoft PI Web API versions prior to 2017 (1.9.0). The vulnerability allows cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks to occur when an otherwise-unauthorized cross-site request is sent from a browser the server has previously authenticated. |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Piwigo through 2.9.1 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of users for requests to change a private album to public via a crafted request. |
| The User::matchEditToken function in includes/User.php in MediaWiki before 1.23.12 and 1.24.x before 1.24.5 does not perform token comparison in constant time before returning, which allows remote attackers to guess the edit token and bypass CSRF protection via a timing attack, a different vulnerability than CVE-2015-8624. |
| Umbraco before 7.4.0 allows remote attackers to bypass anti-forgery security measures and conduct cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks as demonstrated by editing user account information in the templates.asmx.cs file. |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in MFC-J960DWN firmware ver.D and earlier allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators via unspecified vectors. |
| Suricata before 3.2.1 has an IPv4 defragmentation evasion issue caused by lack of a check for the IP protocol during fragment matching. |
| CSRF was discovered in the web UI in Deluge before 1.3.14. The exploitation methodology involves (1) hosting a crafted plugin that executes an arbitrary program from its __init__.py file and (2) causing the victim to download, install, and enable this plugin. |
| D-Link DIR-615 HW: T1 FW:20.09 is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability. This enables an attacker to perform an unwanted action on a wireless router for which the user/admin is currently authenticated, as demonstrated by changing the Security option from WPA2 to None, or changing the hiddenSSID parameter, SSID parameter, or a security-option password. |
| Apache CXF Fediz ships with a number of container-specific plugins to enable WS-Federation for applications. A CSRF (Cross Style Request Forgery) style vulnerability has been found in the Spring 2, Spring 3, Jetty 8 and Jetty 9 plugins in Apache CXF Fediz prior to 1.4.0, 1.3.2 and 1.2.4. |
| Apache CXF Fediz ships with an OpenId Connect (OIDC) service which has a Client Registration Service, which is a simple web application that allows clients to be created, deleted, etc. A CSRF (Cross Style Request Forgery) style vulnerability has been found in this web application in Apache CXF Fediz prior to 1.4.0 and 1.3.2, meaning that a malicious web application could create new clients, or reset secrets, etc, after the admin user has logged on to the client registration service and the session is still active. |
| The HTTP/2 implementation in Apache Tomcat 9.0.0.M1 to 9.0.0.M21 and 8.5.0 to 8.5.15 bypassed a number of security checks that prevented directory traversal attacks. It was therefore possible to bypass security constraints using a specially crafted URL. |
| CSRF exists in BigTree CMS through 4.2.18 with the force parameter to /admin/pages/revisions.php - for example: /admin/pages/revisions/1/?force=false. A page with id=1 can be unlocked. |
| D-Link DCS cameras have a weak/insecure CrossDomain.XML file that allows sites hosting malicious Flash objects to access and/or change the device's settings via a CSRF attack. This is because of the 'allow-access-from domain' child element set to *, thus accepting requests from any domain. If a victim logged into the camera's web console visits a malicious site hosting a malicious Flash file from another Browser tab, the malicious Flash file then can send requests to the victim's DCS series Camera without knowing the credentials. An attacker can host a malicious Flash file that can retrieve Live Feeds or information from the victim's DCS series Camera, add new admin users, or make other changes to the device. Known affected devices are DCS-933L with firmware before 1.13.05, DCS-5030L, DCS-5020L, DCS-2530L, DCS-2630L, DCS-930L, DCS-932L, and DCS-932LB1. |
| EMC RSA Archer 5.4.1.3, 5.5.3.1, 5.5.2.3, 5.5.2, 5.5.1.3.1, 5.5.1.1 is potentially affected by a cross-site request forgery vulnerability. A remote low privileged attacker may potentially exploit the vulnerability to execute unauthorized requests on behalf of the victim, using the authenticated user's privileges. |
| BigTree CMS through 4.2.17 relies on a substring check for CSRF protection, which allows remote attackers to bypass this check by placing the required admin/developer/ URI within a query string in an HTTP Referer header. This was found in core/admin/modules/developer/_header.php and patched in core/inc/bigtree/admin.php on 2017-04-14. |
| atmail before 7.8.0.2 has CSRF, allowing an attacker to upload and import users via CSV. |
| An issue was discovered in Carlo Gavazzi VMU-C EM prior to firmware Version A11_U05, and VMU-C PV prior to firmware Version A17. Successful exploitation of this CROSS-SITE REQUEST FORGERY (CSRF) vulnerability can allow execution of unauthorized actions on the device such as configuration parameter changes, and saving modified configuration. |
| A Cross-Site Request Forgery issue was discovered in Schneider Electric Wonderware InTouch Access Anywhere, version 11.5.2 and prior. The client request may be forged from a different site. This will allow an external site to access internal RDP systems on behalf of the currently logged in user. |
| An issue was discovered in Hanwha Techwin Smart Security Manager Versions 1.5 and prior. Multiple Cross Site Request Forgery vulnerabilities have been identified. The flaws exist within the Redis and Apache Felix Gogo servers that are installed as part of this product. By issuing specific HTTP Post requests, an attacker can gain system level access to a remote shell session. Smart Security Manager Versions 1.5 and prior are affected by these vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities can allow for remote code execution. |
| Routes used to stop running Metasploit tasks (either particular ones or all tasks) allowed GET requests. Only POST requests should have been allowed, as the stop/stop_all routes change the state of the service. This could have allowed an attacker to stop currently-running Metasploit tasks by getting an authenticated user to execute JavaScript. As of Metasploit 4.14.0 (Update 2017061301), the routes for stopping tasks only allow POST requests, which validate the presence of a secret token to prevent CSRF attacks. |
