| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Jupitercow WP sIFR wp-sifr allows Stored XSS.This issue affects WP sIFR: from n/a through <= 0.6.8.1. |
| An SSRF issue in the PDFMyURL service allows a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information and execute arbitrary code via a POST request in the url parameter |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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 WP Lead Plus X plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 0.99. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on several functions. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to perform administrative actions, such as adding pages to the site and/or replacing site content with malicious JavaScript via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. |
| A security vulnerability in HPE IceWall Agent products could be exploited remotely to cause a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in the login flow. |
| 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. |
| SOCIFI Socifi Guest wifi as SAAS is affected by Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via the Socifi wifi portal. The application does not contain a CSRF token and request validation. An attacker can Add/Modify any random user data by sending a crafted CSRF request. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| The Transporters.io plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.1.1. This is due to missing 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 Photo Gallery, Images, Slider in Rbs Image Gallery plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.2.19. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the 'rbs_ajax_create_article' and 'rbs_ajax_reset_views' functions. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to create new posts and reset gallery view counts via a forged request granted they can trick a Contributor+ level user into performing an action such as clicking on a link. |
| A cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the web interface of AVTECH IP camera, DVR, and NVR devices. An attacker can craft malicious requests that, when executed in the context of an authenticated user’s browser session, allow unauthorized changes to the device configuration without user interaction. |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in Avenwu Whistle v.2.9.90 and before allows attackers to perform malicious API calls, resulting in the execution of arbitrary code on the victim's machine. |
| The ARMember Premium plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 6.7. This is due to incorrectly implemented nonce validation function on multiple functions. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify, or delete user meta and plugin options which can lead to limited privilege escalation. |
| The Paradox IP150 Internet Module in version 1.40.00 is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks due to a lack of countermeasures and the use of the HTTP method `GET` to introduce changes in the system. |
| A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Geovision GV-ASWeb application with the version 6.1.1.0 or less that allows attackers to arbitrarily create Administrator accounts via a crafted GET request method. This vulnerability is used in chain with CVE-2024-56903 for a successful CSRF attack. |
| Geovision GV-ASWeb with the version 6.1.1.0 or less allows attackers to modify POST request method with the GET against critical functionalities, such as account management. This vulnerability is used in chain with CVE-2024-56901 for a successful CSRF attack. |
| Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in LifestyleStore v1.0 allows a remote attacker to execute unauthorized actions on behalf of an authenticated user, potentially leading to account modifications or data compromise. |
