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.
14233 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-2P3C-P3QW-69R4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-10-12 14:15 – Updated: 2023-07-31 20:39Impact
The graphql-upload npm package can execute GraphQL operations contained in content-type: multipart/form-data POST requests. Because they are POST requests, they can contain GraphQL mutations. Because they use content-type: multipart/form-data, they can be "simple requests" which are not preflighted by browsers.
If your GraphQL server uses graphql-upload and uses SameSite=None cookies for authentication, then JS on any origin can cause browsers to send cookie-authenticated mutations to your GraphQL server, which will be executed without checking your CORS policy first. (The attack won't be able to see the response to the mutation if your CORS policy is set up properly, but the side effects of the mutation will still happen.)
Additionally, if your GraphQL server uses graphql-upload and relies on network properties for security (whether by explicitly looking at the client's IP address or by only being available on a private network), then JS on any origin can cause browsers (which may be on a private network or have an allowed IP address) to send mutations to your GraphQL server, which will be executed without checking your CORS policy first. (This attack does not require your server to use cookies. It is in some cases prevented by some browsers such as Chrome.)
Apollo Server 2 bundled graphql-upload and enabled it by default, so by default, Apollo Server 2 servers are vulnerable to these CSRF attacks. (Apollo Server 1 did not bundle graphql-upload. Apollo Server 3 no longer bundles graphql-upload, although AS3's docs do document how to manually integrate with graphql-upload.) It is enabled even if your server makes no use of the upload functionality.
If you are running Apollo Server 2 (older than v2.25.4) and do not specify uploads: false to new ApolloServer, then you are vulnerable to this CSRF mutation attack.
We recently introduced an opt-in CSRF prevention feature in Apollo Server 3.7. This feature successfully protects against CSRF even if you have manually integrated your AS3.7 server with graphql-upload. However, this feature is not available for Apollo Server 2.
Patches
If you are using Apollo Server 2 and do not actually use uploads in your schema (ie, the Upload scalar is not used as the argument to any field or in any input object definition, and you do not specify uploads to new ApolloServer), then upgrading to Apollo Server 2.25.4 will automatically disable graphql-upload in your server. This will fix the CSRF mutation vulnerability.
Upgrading to v2.25.4 does still leave your server vulnerable to non-mutation CSRF attacks such as timing attacks against query operations. To protect yourself against these potentially lower impact CSRF attack, we encourage upgrading to Apollo Server v3.7 and enabling CSRF prevention. See the Apollo Server 3 migration guide and the CSRF prevention docs for details.
If you are actively using the uploads feature with Apollo Server 2, then upgrading to v2.25.4 will not disable the feature and you will still be vulnerable. You should instead upgrade to v3.7 and enable the CSRF prevention feature.
If you are manually integrating the graphql-upload package with any version of Apollo Server (or any Node GraphQL server) and need to continue using the feature, then you must enable some sort of CSRF prevention feature to fix this vulnerability. We recommend the CSRF prevention feature in Apollo Server 3.7.
Workarounds
Instead of upgrading your Apollo Server 2 server, you can specify uploads: false to new ApolloServer to disable the graphql-upload integration and protect against CSRF mutations. (Only do this if you do not actually use the uploads feature in your server!) This will still leave your server vulnerable to non-mutation CSRF attacks such as timing attacks against query operations; you need to upgrade to v3.7 and enable CSRF prevention to protect against these attacks.
Related work
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "apollo-server"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "2.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.25.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-10-12T14:15:48Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\nThe [graphql-upload](https://www.npmjs.com/package/graphql-upload) npm package can execute GraphQL operations contained in `content-type: multipart/form-data` POST requests. Because they are POST requests, they can contain GraphQL mutations. Because they use `content-type: multipart/form-data`, they can be \"simple requests\" which are not preflighted by browsers.\n\nIf your GraphQL server uses `graphql-upload` and uses `SameSite=None` cookies for authentication, then JS on any origin can cause browsers to send cookie-authenticated mutations to your GraphQL server, which will be executed without checking your CORS policy first. (The attack won\u0027t be able to see the response to the mutation if your CORS policy is set up properly, but the side effects of the mutation will still happen.)\n\nAdditionally, if your GraphQL server uses `graphql-upload` and relies on network properties for security (whether by explicitly looking at the client\u0027s IP address or by only being available on a private network), then JS on any origin can cause browsers (which may be on a private network or have an allowed IP address) to send mutations to your GraphQL server, which will be executed without checking your CORS policy first. (This attack does not require your server to use cookies. It is in some cases prevented by some browsers such as Chrome.)\n\nApollo Server 2 bundled `graphql-upload` and enabled it by default, so by default, Apollo Server 2 servers are vulnerable to these CSRF attacks. (Apollo Server 1 did not bundle `graphql-upload`. Apollo Server 3 no longer bundles `graphql-upload`, although AS3\u0027s docs do document how to manually integrate with `graphql-upload`.) It is enabled even if your server makes no use of the upload functionality.\n\nIf you are running Apollo Server 2 (older than v2.25.4) and do not specify `uploads: false` to `new ApolloServer`, then you are vulnerable to this CSRF mutation attack.\n\nWe recently introduced an opt-in CSRF prevention feature in Apollo Server 3.7. This feature successfully protects against CSRF even if you have manually integrated your AS3.7 server with `graphql-upload`. However, this feature is not available for Apollo Server 2.\n\n### Patches\nIf you are using Apollo Server 2 and do *not* actually use uploads in your schema (ie, the `Upload` scalar is not used as the argument to any field or in any input object definition, and you do not specify `uploads` to `new ApolloServer`), then upgrading to Apollo Server 2.25.4 will automatically disable `graphql-upload` in your server. This will fix the CSRF mutation vulnerability.\n\nUpgrading to v2.25.4 does still leave your server vulnerable to non-mutation CSRF attacks such as timing attacks against query operations. To protect yourself against these potentially lower impact CSRF attack, we encourage upgrading to Apollo Server v3.7 and enabling CSRF prevention. See [the Apollo Server 3 migration guide](https://www.apollographql.com/docs/apollo-server/migration/) and the [CSRF prevention docs](https://www.apollographql.com/docs/apollo-server/security/cors/#preventing-cross-site-request-forgery-csrf) for details.\n\nIf you are actively using the uploads feature with Apollo Server 2, then upgrading to v2.25.4 will not disable the feature and you will still be vulnerable. You should instead upgrade to v3.7 and enable the CSRF prevention feature.\n\nIf you are manually integrating the `graphql-upload` package with any version of Apollo Server (or any Node GraphQL server) and need to continue using the feature, then you must enable some sort of CSRF prevention feature to fix this vulnerability. We recommend the CSRF prevention feature in Apollo Server 3.7.\n\n### Workarounds\nInstead of upgrading your Apollo Server 2 server, you can specify `uploads: false` to `new ApolloServer` to disable the `graphql-upload` integration and protect against CSRF mutations. (Only do this if you do not actually use the uploads feature in your server!) This will still leave your server vulnerable to non-mutation CSRF attacks such as timing attacks against query operations; you need to upgrade to v3.7 and enable CSRF prevention to protect against these attacks.\n\n### Related work\n- [PR adding a Security section to the GraphQL multipart request spec](https://github.com/jaydenseric/graphql-multipart-request-spec/pull/64)",
"id": "GHSA-2p3c-p3qw-69r4",
"modified": "2023-07-31T20:39:03Z",
"published": "2022-10-12T14:15:48Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/apollographql/apollo-server/security/advisories/GHSA-2p3c-p3qw-69r4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/jaydenseric/graphql-multipart-request-spec/pull/64"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/apollographql/apollo-server/commit/82d44985ddca8e61557957d67f41e9c1a705a5ca"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/apollographql/apollo-server"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [],
"summary": "The graphql-upload library included in Apollo Server 2 is vulnerable to CSRF mutations"
}
GHSA-2P4H-6X4F-47JJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-07-18 15:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 06:13Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in David Pokorny Replace Word plugin <= 2.1 versions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-37973"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-07-18T13:15:12Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in David Pokorny Replace Word plugin \u003c=\u00a02.1 versions.",
"id": "GHSA-2p4h-6x4f-47jj",
"modified": "2024-04-04T06:13:12Z",
"published": "2023-07-18T15:30:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-37973"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/replace-word/wordpress-replace-word-plugin-2-1-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-2P5C-R4XC-MHVW
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:14 – Updated: 2025-12-31 21:30A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in TinyFileManager all version up to and including 2.4.6 that allows attackers to upload files and run OS commands by inducing the Administrator user to browse a URL controlled by an attacker.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-40965"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-09-15T18:15:00Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in TinyFileManager all version up to and including 2.4.6 that allows attackers to upload files and run OS commands by inducing the Administrator user to browse a URL controlled by an attacker.",
"id": "GHSA-2p5c-r4xc-mhvw",
"modified": "2025-12-31T21:30:22Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:14:36Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-40965"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://gist.github.com/omriinbar/953368dcdd9e5eeefd83920166099528"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/prasathmani/tinyfilemanager"
}
],
"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"
}
]
}
GHSA-2P68-5CJX-PX9G
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-07-11 09:30 – Updated: 2024-04-04 05:54Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Pixelgrade Comments Ratings plugin <= 1.1.6 versions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-23704"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-07-11T08:15:10Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Pixelgrade Comments Ratings plugin \u003c=\u00a01.1.6 versions.",
"id": "GHSA-2p68-5cjx-px9g",
"modified": "2024-04-04T05:54:55Z",
"published": "2023-07-11T09:30:39Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-23704"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/comments-ratings/wordpress-comments-ratings-plugin-1-1-6-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-2P9F-J97G-5GVV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 01:34 – Updated: 2025-04-12 12:34Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the WordPress Related Posts plugin before 2.6.2 for WordPress allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of users for requests that change settings via unspecified vectors.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2013-3476"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2014-06-02T15:55:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the WordPress Related Posts plugin before 2.6.2 for WordPress allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of users for requests that change settings via unspecified vectors.",
"id": "GHSA-2p9f-j97g-5gvv",
"modified": "2025-04-12T12:34:24Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T01:34:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2013-3476"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/84247"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/53279"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://wordpress.org/plugins/wordpress-23-related-posts-plugin/changelog"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/59839"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-2P9J-F7CX-VH7M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-01 18:13 – Updated: 2022-05-01 18:13Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in the administration of (1) polls, (2) profiles, (3) IP bans, and (4) forums in (a) web-app.org WebAPP 0.8 through 0.9.9.6; and (b) web-app.net WebAPP 0.9.9.3.3, 0.9.9.3.4, and 2007; allow remote attackers to perform deletions as administrators.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2007-3416"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2007-06-26T23:30:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in the administration of (1) polls, (2) profiles, (3) IP bans, and (4) forums in (a) web-app.org WebAPP 0.8 through 0.9.9.6; and (b) web-app.net WebAPP 0.9.9.3.3, 0.9.9.3.4, and 2007; allow remote attackers to perform deletions as administrators.",
"id": "GHSA-2p9j-f7cx-vh7m",
"modified": "2022-05-01T18:13:40Z",
"published": "2022-05-01T18:13:40Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2007-3416"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/35929"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.attrition.org/pipermail/vim/2007-June/001687.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.web-app.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=forum\u0026board=how_to\u0026op=display\u0026num=9458"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.web-app.org/downloads/WebAPPv0.9.9.7.zip"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-2P9J-VP6V-8F8M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-06-21 06:31 – Updated: 2024-06-24 21:33The Widget Bundle WordPress plugin through 2.0.0 does not have CSRF checks when logging Widgets, which could allow attackers to make logged in admin enable/disable widgets via a CSRF attack
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-4969"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-06-21T06:15:12Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Widget Bundle WordPress plugin through 2.0.0 does not have CSRF checks when logging Widgets, which could allow attackers to make logged in admin enable/disable widgets via a CSRF attack",
"id": "GHSA-2p9j-vp6v-8f8m",
"modified": "2024-06-24T21:33:18Z",
"published": "2024-06-21T06:31:13Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-4969"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/1a7ec5dc-eda4-4fed-9df9-f41d2b937fed"
}
],
"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-2PGG-H82P-8CPR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-12-12 09:30 – Updated: 2023-12-14 18:30Mattermost fails to validate if a relative path is passed in /plugins/playbooks/api/v0/telemetry/run/ as a telemetry run ID, allowing an attacker to use a path traversal payload that points to a different endpoint leading to a CSRF attack.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-45316"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-22",
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-12-12T09:15:07Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Mattermost fails to validate if a relative path is passed in /plugins/playbooks/api/v0/telemetry/run/\u003ctelem_run_id\u003e as a telemetry run ID, allowing an attacker to use a path traversal payload that points to a different endpoint leading to a\u00a0CSRF attack.\n\n",
"id": "GHSA-2pgg-h82p-8cpr",
"modified": "2023-12-14T18:30:20Z",
"published": "2023-12-12T09:30:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-45316"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://mattermost.com/security-updates"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-2PGQ-V89H-J58M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-19 18:31 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:32Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Sam Hoe SH Slideshow allows Stored XSS.This issue affects SH Slideshow: from n/a through 4.3.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-51632"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-19T17:15:17Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Sam Hoe SH Slideshow allows Stored XSS.This issue affects SH Slideshow: from n/a through 4.3.",
"id": "GHSA-2pgq-v89h-j58m",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:32:28Z",
"published": "2024-11-19T18:31:01Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-51632"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/sh-slideshow/vulnerability/wordpress-sh-slideshow-plugin-4-3-csrf-to-stored-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/sh-slideshow/wordpress-sh-slideshow-plugin-4-3-csrf-to-stored-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-2PJ6-5HQC-W5X9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-02-16 00:01 – Updated: 2022-12-01 22:06WAMP Plugin 1.2.6 and earlier does not perform a permission check in a method implementing form validation.\
This allows attackers with Overall/Read permission to connect to an attacker-specified URL using attacker-specified credentials IDs obtained through another method, capturing credentials stored in Jenkins.
Additionally, this form validation method does not require POST requests, resulting in a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Maven",
"name": "org.continuousassurance.swamp.jenkins:swamp"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"last_affected": "1.2.6"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-25212"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-352"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2022-12-01T22:06:24Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2022-02-15T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "WAMP Plugin 1.2.6 and earlier does not perform a permission check in a method implementing form validation.\\\n\nThis allows attackers with Overall/Read permission to connect to an attacker-specified URL using attacker-specified credentials IDs obtained through another method, capturing credentials stored in Jenkins.\n\nAdditionally, this form validation method does not require POST requests, resulting in a cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability.",
"id": "GHSA-2pj6-5hqc-w5x9",
"modified": "2022-12-01T22:06:24Z",
"published": "2022-02-16T00:01:12Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-25212"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/jenkinsci/swamp-plugin"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.jenkins.io/security/advisory/2022-02-15/#SECURITY-1988"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "CSRF vulnerability in Jenkins SWAMP Plugin allows capturing credentials"
}
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.