Search Results (9347 CVEs found)

CVE Vendors Products Updated CVSS v3.1
CVE-2024-6841 1 Vanna-ai 1 Vanna 2026-04-15 N/A
A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the latest commit (56b782bcefd2e59b19cd7ba7878b95f54884f502) of the vanna-ai/vanna repository. Two endpoints in the built-in web app that provide SQL functionality are implemented as simple GET requests, making them susceptible to CSRF attacks. This vulnerability allows an attacker to run arbitrary SQL commands via CSRF without the target intending to expose the web app to the network or other users. The impact is limited to data alteration or deletion, as the attacker cannot read the results of the query.
CVE-2023-22675 1 Wordpress 1 Wordpress 2026-04-15 4.3 Medium
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Taylor Hawkes WP Fast Cache allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects WP Fast Cache: from n/a through 1.5.
CVE-2019-25359 1 Sitzungsdienst 1 Sd.net Rim 2026-04-15 8.2 High
SD.NET RIM versions before 4.7.3c contain a SQL injection vulnerability that allows attackers to inject malicious SQL statements through POST parameters 'idtyp' and 'idgremium'. Attackers can exploit this vulnerability by crafting specially formed POST requests to the /vorlagen/ endpoint, enabling unauthorized database manipulation and potential information disclosure.
CVE-2024-35773 2026-04-15 7.1 High
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in WPJohnny, zerOneIT Comment Reply Email allows Cross-Site Scripting (XSS).This issue affects Comment Reply Email: from n/a through 1.3.
CVE-2025-50255 1 Bpcbt 2 Smartvista, Smartvista Backoffice 2026-04-15 7.8 High
Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Smartvista BackOffice SmartVista Suite 2.2.22 via crafted GET request.
CVE-2025-60535 1 Wallosapp 1 Wallos 2026-04-15 7.3 High
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.
CVE-2023-50923 2026-04-15 4.3 Medium
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."
CVE-2025-52463 2026-04-15 N/A
Cross-site request forgery vulnerability exists in Active! mail 6 BuildInfo: 6.60.06008562 and earlier. If this vulnerability is exploited, unintended E-mail may be sent when a user accesses a specially crafted URL while being logged in.
CVE-2025-42923 1 Sap 1 Fiori 2026-04-15 4.3 Medium
Due to insufficient CSRF protection in SAP Fiori App Manage Work Center Groups, an authenticated user could be tricked by an attacker to send unintended request to the web server. This has low impact on integrity and no impact on confidentiality and availability of the application.
CVE-2020-10095 2026-04-15 8.1 High
Various Lexmark devices have CSRF that allows an attacker to modify the configuration of the device.
CVE-2021-47820 1 Ubeeinteractive 1 Ubee Evw327 2026-04-15 5.3 Medium
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.
CVE-2024-4100 2 Elfsight, Wordpress 2 Pricing Table, Wordpress 2026-04-15 5.3 Medium
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.
CVE-2025-0807 2026-04-15 4.3 Medium
The CITS Support svg, webp Media and TTF,OTF File Upload, Use Custom Fonts plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 4.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the cits_settings_tab() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the plugin's settings via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.
CVE-2024-51144 1 Ampache 1 Ampache 2026-04-15 8.8 High
Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the 'pvmsg.php?action=add_message', pvmsg.php?action=confirm_delete , and ajax.server.php?page=user&action=flip_follow endpoints in Ampache <= 6.6.0.
CVE-2025-3037 1 Yzk2356911358 1 Studentservlet-jsp 2026-04-15 4.3 Medium
A vulnerability has been found in yzk2356911358 StudentServlet-JSP cc0cdce25fbe43b6c58b60a77a2c85f52d2102f5/d4d7a0643f1dae908a4831206f2714b21820f991 and classified as problematic. This vulnerability affects unknown code. The manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. Continious delivery with rolling releases is used by this product. Therefore, no version details of affected nor updated releases are available.
CVE-2023-52212 2 Automattic, Wordpress 2 Wp Job Manager, Wordpress 2026-04-15 5.4 Medium
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.
CVE-2024-6168 1 Wordpress 1 Wordpress 2026-04-15 4.3 Medium
The Just Custom Fields plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.3.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on several AJAX function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to invoke this functionality intended for admin users via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. This enables subscribers to manage field groups, change visibility of items among other things.
CVE-2024-6309 1 Praveenrajan 1 Attachment File Icons 2026-04-15 8.8 High
The Attachment File Icons (AF Icons) plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery to Arbitrary File Upload in versions up to, and including, 1.3. This is due to missing nonce validation in the 'afi_overview' function and missing file type validation in the 'upload_icons' function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to upload arbitrary files on the affected site's server which may make remote code execution possible via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.
CVE-2024-6321 2 Dwieeb, Wordpress 2 Scroll To Bottom, Wordpress 2026-04-15 8.8 High
The ScrollTo Bottom plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery to Arbitrary File Upload in versions up to, and including, 1.1.1. This is due to missing nonce validation and missing file type validation in the 'options_page' function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to upload arbitrary files on the affected site's server which may make remote code execution possible via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.
CVE-2024-42475 2026-04-15 6.5 Medium
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.