CWE-352
AllowedCross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
Abstraction: Compound · Status: Stable
The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
14188 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-GV64-H8VQ-2WJH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 04:07 – Updated: 2022-05-17 04:07Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in form2WlanSetup.cgi on Philippine Long Distance Telephone (PLDT) SpeedSurf 504AN devices with firmware GAN9.8U26-4-TX-R6B018-PH.EN and Kasda KW58293 devices allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that perform setup operations, as demonstrated by modifying network settings.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2015-5991"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2015-09-21T10:59:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in form2WlanSetup.cgi on Philippine Long Distance Telephone (PLDT) SpeedSurf 504AN devices with firmware GAN9.8U26-4-TX-R6B018-PH.EN and Kasda KW58293 devices allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that perform setup operations, as demonstrated by modifying network settings.",
"id": "GHSA-gv64-h8vq-2wjh",
"modified": "2022-05-17T04:07:20Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T04:07:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2015-5991"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/525276"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-GV7G-X59X-WF8F
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-04-07 19:23 – Updated: 2023-04-14 20:30Summary
The SvelteKit framework offers developers an option to create simple REST APIs. This is done by defining a +server.js file, containing endpoint handlers for different HTTP methods.
SvelteKit provides out-of-the-box cross-site request forgery (CSRF) protection to its users. The protection is implemented at kit/src/runtime/server/respond.js. While the implementation does a sufficient job of mitigating common CSRF attacks, the protection can be bypassed by simply specifying an upper-cased Content-Type header value. The browser will not send uppercase characters on form submission, but this check does not block all expected cross-site requests: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CORS#simple_requests
Details
The CSRF protection is implemented using the code shown below.
const forbidden =
is_form_content_type(request) &&
(request.method === 'POST' ||
request.method === 'PUT' ||
request.method === 'PATCH' ||
request.method === 'DELETE') &&
request.headers.get('origin') !== url.origin;
if (forbidden) {
const csrf_error = error(403, `Cross-site ${request.method} form submissions are forbidden`);
if (request.headers.get('accept') === 'application/json') {
return json(csrf_error.body, { status: csrf_error.status });
}
return text(csrf_error.body.message, { status: csrf_error.status });
}
If the incoming request specifies a POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE method, the protection will compare the server’s origin with the value of the HTTP Origin header. A mismatch between these values signals that a potential attack has been detected. The final check is performed on the request’s Content-Type header whether the value is either application/x-www-form-urlencoded, multipart/form-data or text/plain. If all the previous checks pass, the request will be rejected with an 403 error response.
However, is_form_content_type, which is responsible for checking the value of the Content-Type header, is not sufficient to mitigate all possible variations of this type of attack. Since this function is checking Content-Type with lower-cased values, and the browser accepts upper-cased Content-Type header to be sent, a CSRF attack performed with the Content-Type header that contains an upper-cased character (e.g., text/plaiN) can circumvent the protection and the request will be processed by the endpoint handler.
Impact
If abused, this issue will allow malicious requests to be submitted from third-party domains, which can allow execution of operations within the context of the victim's session, and in extreme scenarios can lead to unauthorized access to users’ accounts. This may lead to all POST operations requiring authentication being allowed in the following cases:
1. If the target site sets SameSite=None on its auth cookie and the user visits a malicious site in a Chromium-based browser
2. If the target site doesn't set the SameSite attribute explicitly and the user visits a malicious site with Firefox/Safari with tracking protections turned off.
3. If the user is visiting a malicious site with a very outdated browser.
Remediations
It is preferred to update to SvelteKit 1.15.2. It is also recommended to explicitly set SameSite to a value other than None on authentication cookies especially if the upgrade cannot be done in a timely manner.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@sveltejs/kit"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.15.2"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-29008"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352",
"CWE-918"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-04-07T19:23:31Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-04-06T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "### Summary\nThe SvelteKit framework offers developers an option to create simple REST APIs. This is done by defining a `+server.js` file, containing endpoint handlers for different HTTP methods.\n\nSvelteKit provides out-of-the-box cross-site request forgery (CSRF) protection to its users. The protection is implemented at `kit/src/runtime/server/respond.js`. While the implementation does a sufficient job of mitigating common CSRF attacks, the protection can be bypassed by simply specifying an upper-cased `Content-Type` header value. The browser will not send uppercase characters on form submission, but this check does not block all expected cross-site requests: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CORS#simple_requests\n\n### Details\nThe CSRF protection is implemented using the code shown below.\n\n``` javascript\n\t\tconst forbidden =\n\t\t\tis_form_content_type(request) \u0026\u0026\n\t\t\t(request.method === \u0027POST\u0027 ||\n\t\t\t\trequest.method === \u0027PUT\u0027 ||\n\t\t\t\trequest.method === \u0027PATCH\u0027 ||\n\t\t\t\trequest.method === \u0027DELETE\u0027) \u0026\u0026\n\t\t\trequest.headers.get(\u0027origin\u0027) !== url.origin;\n\n\t\tif (forbidden) {\n\t\t\tconst csrf_error = error(403, `Cross-site ${request.method} form submissions are forbidden`);\n\t\t\tif (request.headers.get(\u0027accept\u0027) === \u0027application/json\u0027) {\n\t\t\t\treturn json(csrf_error.body, { status: csrf_error.status });\n\t\t\t}\n\t\t\treturn text(csrf_error.body.message, { status: csrf_error.status });\n\t\t}\n```\n\nIf the incoming request specifies a POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE method, the protection will compare the server\u2019s origin with the value of the HTTP Origin header. A mismatch between these values signals that a potential attack has been detected. The final check is performed on the request\u2019s `Content-Type` header whether the value is either `application/x-www-form-urlencoded`, `multipart/form-data` or `text/plain`. If all the previous checks pass, the request will be rejected with an 403 error response.\nHowever, `is_form_content_type`, which is responsible for checking the value of the `Content-Type` header, is not sufficient to mitigate all possible variations of this type of attack. Since this function is checking `Content-Type` with lower-cased values, and the browser accepts upper-cased `Content-Type` header to be sent, a CSRF attack performed with the `Content-Type` header that contains an upper-cased character (e.g., `text/plaiN`) can circumvent the protection and the request will be processed by the endpoint handler.\n\u003c!--\n### PoC\n1. Set up the SvelteKit with `POST /api/test` endpoint.\n2. Replace `REPLACE_DOMAIN` in the following HTML.\n``` html\n\u003cscript\u003e\n(async() =\u003e {\n\tawait fetch(\"https://REPLACE_DOMAIN/api/test\", {method: \"POST\", headers:{\"Content-Type\":\"text/plaiN\"}, body: \"hello=world\"});\n})();\n\u003c/script\u003e\n```\n3. Confirm that a POST request is processed by the server.\n--\u003e\n### Impact\nIf abused, this issue will allow malicious requests to be submitted from third-party domains, which can allow execution of operations within the context of the victim\u0027s session, and in extreme scenarios can lead to unauthorized access to users\u2019 accounts. This may lead to all POST operations requiring authentication being allowed in the following cases:\n1. If the target site sets `SameSite=None` on its auth cookie and the user visits a malicious site in a Chromium-based browser\n2. If the target site doesn\u0027t set the `SameSite` attribute explicitly and the user visits a malicious site with Firefox/Safari with tracking protections turned off.\n3. If the user is visiting a malicious site with a very outdated browser.\n\n### Remediations\nIt is preferred to update to SvelteKit 1.15.2. It is also recommended to explicitly set `SameSite` to a value other than `None` on authentication cookies especially if the upgrade cannot be done in a timely manner.",
"id": "GHSA-gv7g-x59x-wf8f",
"modified": "2023-04-14T20:30:47Z",
"published": "2023-04-07T19:23:31Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sveltejs/kit/security/advisories/GHSA-gv7g-x59x-wf8f"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-29008"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sveltejs/kit/commit/ba436c6685e751d968a960fbda65f24cf7a82e9f"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/sveltejs/kit"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "SvelteKit framework has Insufficient CSRF protection for CORS requests"
}
GHSA-GV7V-99QM-GW7Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-01 23:28 – Updated: 2022-05-01 23:28Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in admin.php in eTicket 1.5.5.2 allows remote attackers to change the administrative password and possibly perform other administrative tasks. NOTE: either the old password must be known, or the attacker must leverage a separate SQL injection vulnerability.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2008-0266"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2008-01-15T20:00:00Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in admin.php in eTicket 1.5.5.2 allows remote attackers to change the administrative password and possibly perform other administrative tasks. NOTE: either the old password must be known, or the attacker must leverage a separate SQL injection vulnerability.",
"id": "GHSA-gv7v-99qm-gw7q",
"modified": "2022-05-01T23:28:47Z",
"published": "2022-05-01T23:28:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2008-0266"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/39490"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/28331"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://securityreason.com/securityalert/3542"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/485835/100/0/threaded"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/27173"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-GV89-H5G3-2XC2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-07-17 15:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 06:09The 3DPrint WordPress plugin before 3.5.6.9 does not protect against CSRF attacks in the modified version of Tiny File Manager included with the plugin, allowing an attacker to craft a malicious request that will create an archive of any files or directories on the target server by tricking a logged in admin into submitting a form. Furthermore the created archive has a predictable location and name, allowing the attacker to download the file if they know the time at which the form was submitted, making it possible to leak sensitive files like the WordPress configuration containing database credentials and secrets.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-4023"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-07-17T14:15:09Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The 3DPrint WordPress plugin before 3.5.6.9 does not protect against CSRF attacks in the modified version of Tiny File Manager included with the plugin, allowing an attacker to craft a malicious request that will create an archive of any files or directories on the target server by tricking a logged in admin into submitting a form. Furthermore the created archive has a predictable location and name, allowing the attacker to download the file if they know the time at which the form was submitted, making it possible to leak sensitive files like the WordPress configuration containing database credentials and secrets.",
"id": "GHSA-gv89-h5g3-2xc2",
"modified": "2024-04-04T06:09:40Z",
"published": "2023-07-17T15:30:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-4023"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jetpack.com/blog/vulnerabilities-found-in-the-3dprint-premium-plugin"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/859c6e7e-2381-4d93-a526-2000b4fb8fee"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-GV93-C8VM-3G8R
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:47 – Updated: 2025-04-20 03:37In WordPress before 4.7.5, there is improper handling of post meta data values in the XML-RPC API.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-9062"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352",
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-05-18T14:29:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "In WordPress before 4.7.5, there is improper handling of post meta data values in the XML-RPC API.",
"id": "GHSA-gv93-c8vm-3g8r",
"modified": "2025-04-20T03:37:51Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:47:48Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-9062"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/commit/3d95e3ae816f4d7c638f40d3e936a4be19724381"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://codex.wordpress.org/Version_4.7.5"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wordpress.org/news/2017/05/wordpress-4-7-5"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpvulndb.com/vulnerabilities/8816"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.debian.org/security/2017/dsa-3870"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/98509"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1038520"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-GVC8-8JHG-7556
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-28 00:32 – Updated: 2025-02-06 18:31Cross Site Request Forgery vulnerability in LifestyleStore v.1.0 allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary cod and obtain sensitive information.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-57373"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-27T23:15:09Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Cross Site Request Forgery vulnerability in LifestyleStore v.1.0 allows a remote attacker to execute arbitrary cod and obtain sensitive information.",
"id": "GHSA-gvc8-8jhg-7556",
"modified": "2025-02-06T18:31:04Z",
"published": "2025-01-28T00:32:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-57373"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cypherdavy/CVE-2024-57373"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/sajalagrawal/LifestyleStore"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-GVCF-H5V7-8HXX
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 04:18 – Updated: 2022-05-17 04:18Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in the gSlideShow plugin 0.1 and earlier for WordPress allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that conduct cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks via the (1) rss, (2) display_time or (3) transistion_time parameter in the gslideshow.php page to wp-admin/options-general.php.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2014-9391"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2014-12-31T21:59:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in the gSlideShow plugin 0.1 and earlier for WordPress allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that conduct cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks via the (1) rss, (2) display_time or (3) transistion_time parameter in the gslideshow.php page to wp-admin/options-general.php.",
"id": "GHSA-gvcf-h5v7-8hxx",
"modified": "2022-05-17T04:18:15Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T04:18:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2014-9391"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/129637/WordPress-gSlideShow-0.1-CSRF-XSS.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-GVFF-QXFC-G43P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-08-20 09:30 – Updated: 2026-04-23 18:30Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in wptasker WP Discord Post Plus – Supports Unlimited Channels allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects WP Discord Post Plus – Supports Unlimited Channels: from n/a through 1.0.2.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-49896"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352",
"CWE-639"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-08-20T08:15:39Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in wptasker WP Discord Post Plus \u0026#8211; Supports Unlimited Channels allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects WP Discord Post Plus \u0026#8211; Supports Unlimited Channels: from n/a through 1.0.2.",
"id": "GHSA-gvff-qxfc-g43p",
"modified": "2026-04-23T18:30:46Z",
"published": "2025-08-20T09:30:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-49896"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/school-management/vulnerability/wordpress-school-management-plugin-plugin-93-1-0-insecure-direct-object-references-idor-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/wp-discord-post-plus/vulnerability/wordpress-wp-discord-post-plus-supports-unlimited-channels-plugin-1-0-2-cross-site-request-forgery-csrf-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-GVGG-7X9J-W5P5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-22 21:30 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:36Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in mihdan Mihdan: No External Links allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects Mihdan: No External Links: from n/a through 5.1.4.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-53451"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-22T19:15:41Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in mihdan Mihdan: No External Links allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects Mihdan: No External Links: from n/a through 5.1.4.",
"id": "GHSA-gvgg-7x9j-w5p5",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:36:09Z",
"published": "2025-09-22T21:30:21Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-53451"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/mihdan-no-external-links/vulnerability/wordpress-mihdan-no-external-links-plugin-5-1-4-cross-site-request-forgery-csrf-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-GVGV-M2GJ-339G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 03:39 – Updated: 2022-05-17 03:39A vulnerability in Cisco Meeting Server could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to conduct a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attack against a Web Bridge user. More Information: CSCvb03308. Known Affected Releases: 1.8, 1.9, 2.0.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2016-6444"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2016-10-27T21:59:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in Cisco Meeting Server could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to conduct a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attack against a Web Bridge user. More Information: CSCvb03308. Known Affected Releases: 1.8, 1.9, 2.0.",
"id": "GHSA-gvgv-m2gj-339g",
"modified": "2022-05-17T03:39:25Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T03:39:25Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-6444"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20161019-cms"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/93785"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Mitigation MIT-4
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482].
- For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330]
- Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]
Mitigation
Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
Mitigation
Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330). [REF-332]
Mitigation
Identify especially dangerous operations. When the user performs a dangerous operation, send a separate confirmation request to ensure that the user intended to perform that operation.
Mitigation
- Use the "double-submitted cookie" method as described by Felten and Zeller:
- When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user's machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as a form value and also as a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form value and the cookie value are the same.
- Because of the same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult.
- This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled. [REF-331]
Mitigation
Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.
Mitigation
Check the HTTP Referer header to see if the request originated from an expected page. This could break legitimate functionality, because users or proxies may have disabled sending the Referer for privacy reasons.
CAPEC-111: JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking)
An attacker targets a system that uses JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) as a transport mechanism between the client and the server (common in Web 2.0 systems using AJAX) to steal possibly confidential information transmitted from the server back to the client inside the JSON object by taking advantage of the loophole in the browser's Same Origin Policy that does not prohibit JavaScript from one website to be included and executed in the context of another website.
CAPEC-462: Cross-Domain Search Timing
An attacker initiates cross domain HTTP / GET requests and times the server responses. The timing of these responses may leak important information on what is happening on the server. Browser's same origin policy prevents the attacker from directly reading the server responses (in the absence of any other weaknesses), but does not prevent the attacker from timing the responses to requests that the attacker issued cross domain.
CAPEC-467: Cross Site Identification
An attacker harvests identifying information about a victim via an active session that the victim's browser has with a social networking site. A victim may have the social networking site open in one tab or perhaps is simply using the "remember me" feature to keep their session with the social networking site active. An attacker induces a payload to execute in the victim's browser that transparently to the victim initiates a request to the social networking site (e.g., via available social network site APIs) to retrieve identifying information about a victim. While some of this information may be public, the attacker is able to harvest this information in context and may use it for further attacks on the user (e.g., spear phishing).
CAPEC-62: Cross Site Request Forgery
An attacker crafts malicious web links and distributes them (via web pages, email, etc.), typically in a targeted manner, hoping to induce users to click on the link and execute the malicious action against some third-party application. If successful, the action embedded in the malicious link will be processed and accepted by the targeted application with the users' privilege level. This type of attack leverages the persistence and implicit trust placed in user session cookies by many web applications today. In such an architecture, once the user authenticates to an application and a session cookie is created on the user's system, all following transactions for that session are authenticated using that cookie including potential actions initiated by an attacker and simply "riding" the existing session cookie.