| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| 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. |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in easy-popup-show all versions allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to hijack the authentication of the administrator and to perform unintended operations if the administrator views a malicious page while logged in. |
| ESPHome is a system to control microcontrollers remotely through Home Automation systems. API endpoints in dashboard component of ESPHome version 2023.12.9 (command line installation) are vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) allowing remote attackers to carry out attacks against a logged user of the dashboard to perform operations on configuration files (create, edit, delete). It is possible for a malicious actor to create a specifically crafted web page that triggers a cross site request against ESPHome, this allows bypassing the authentication for API calls on the platform. This vulnerability allows bypassing authentication on API calls accessing configuration file operations on the behalf of a logged user. In order to trigger the vulnerability, the victim must visit a weaponized page. In addition to this, it is possible to chain this vulnerability with GHSA-9p43-hj5j-96h5/ CVE-2024-27287 to obtain a complete takeover of the user account. Version 2024.3.0 contains a patch for this issue.
|
| 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. |
| The SMS for WooCommerce 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 a function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to 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 Stop Registration Spam plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.23. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to 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. CVE-2024-56017 is likely a duplicate of this issue. |
| 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`.
|
| The Woocommerce check pincode/zipcode for shipping plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.0.4. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to 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 WordPress Header Builder Plugin – Pearl plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.3.8. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the stm_header_builder page. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to delete arbitrary headers via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. |
| 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 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. |
| The Wtyczka SeoPilot dla WP plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.3.091. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the SeoPilot_Admin_Options() 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. |
| 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. |
| Unauthenticated Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in Post Views Counter <= 1.4.4 versions. |
| The 404 Error Monitor plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the updatePluginSettings() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to make changes to plugin settings and clear up all the error logs 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 NEC Corporation UNIVERGE IX from Ver9.2 to Ver10.10.21, for Ver10.8 up to Ver10.8.27 and for Ver10.9 up to Ver10.9.14 allows a attacker to hijack the authentication of screens on the device via the management interface. |
| The Delete Custom Fields plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 0.3.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the ajax_delete_field() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to delete arbitrary post meta data via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. |
| A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in Elgato's Key Lights and related light products allows an attacker to host a malicious webpage that remotely controlles the victim's lights. |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Automattic WP Job Manager allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects WP Job Manager: from n/a through 2.0.0. |
| 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." |
