Export limit exceeded: 368574 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Export limit exceeded: 10354 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Export limit exceeded: 13702 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Export limit exceeded: 10354 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (10354 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-61502 | 2026-07-14 | 4.3 Medium | ||
| Rejetto HFS 3.0.0 through 3.2.0 accepts state-changing API requests via the GET method and exempts GET requests from its anti-CSRF header check. A remote attacker can perform administrative actions including account creation and configuration changes leading to code execution - by causing a logged-in administrator's browser to navigate to a crafted URL, or without any credentials against default installations when the attack originates from the server's own machine. | ||||
| CVE-2026-58489 | 1 Hedgedoc | 1 Hedgedoc | 2026-07-14 | N/A |
| HedgeDoc is an open source, real-time collaborative markdown notes application. Prior to 1.11.0, the GitHub Gist export flow created an OAuth2 state value but only checked that it was present rather than validating it against the value expected for the user's session. Because the state was not properly validated, an attacker could forge a callback URL containing their own valid GitHub OAuth code. When processing the callback, HedgeDoc used the victim's logged-in session to select which note to export, but the attacker's authorization code to determine which GitHub account received it. As a result, a logged-in victim who clicked a crafted link could export their own private, protected, or limited note directly into a Gist controlled by the attacker. This issue has been fixed in version 1.11.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-13243 | 1 Drupal | 1 Salesforce Suite | 2026-07-13 | 4.8 Medium |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Drupal Salesforce Suite allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects Salesforce Suite versions: from 0.0.0 to 5.1.3. | ||||
| CVE-2026-15080 | 1 Drupal | 1 Ray Enterprise Translation | 2026-07-13 | 4.3 Medium |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Drupal Ray Enterprise Translation allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects Ray Enterprise Translation versions: from 0.0.0 to 4.0.4, from 4.1.0 to 4.1.4, from 11.0.0 to 11.0.4. | ||||
| CVE-2008-4128 | 1 Cisco | 2 871 Integrated Services Router, Ios | 2026-07-13 | 4.3 Medium |
| Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in the HTTP Administration component in Cisco IOS 12.4 on the 871 Integrated Services Router allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary commands via (1) a certain "show privilege" command to the /level/15/exec/- URI, and (2) a certain "alias exec" command to the /level/15/exec/-/configure/http URI. NOTE: some of these details are obtained from third party information. | ||||
| CVE-2019-13529 | 1 Sma | 2 Sunny Webbox, Sunny Webbox Firmware | 2026-07-13 | 8.8 High |
| An attacker could send a malicious link to an authenticated operator, which may allow remote attackers to perform actions with the permissions of the user on the Sunny WebBox Firmware Version 1.6 and prior. This device uses IP addresses to maintain communication after a successful login, which would increase the ease of exploitation. | ||||
| CVE-2026-57786 | 2 Purethemes, Wordpress | 2 Workscout Core, Wordpress | 2026-07-13 | 8.8 High |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in purethemes WorkScout-Core workscout-core allows Authentication Bypass.This issue affects WorkScout-Core: from n/a through <= 1.7.08. | ||||
| CVE-2026-6440 | 2 Sovlix, Wordpress | 2 Goodmeet – Google Meet Integration For Webinar, Meeting & Video Conference, Wordpress | 2026-07-13 | 4.3 Medium |
| The GoodMeet – Google Meet Integration for Webinar, Meeting & Video Conference plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to and including 1.1.8. This is due to a missing nonce verification in the reset_credential() function, which handles the wp_ajax_goodmeet_reset_google_meet_credential AJAX action. While the function does verify the user's capability (manage_options), it does not validate a nonce, making it susceptible to CSRF attacks. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to trick a site administrator into clicking a malicious link that will reset (delete) the plugin's stored Google Meet API credentials (goodmeet_google_credentials) and OAuth tokens (goodmeet_google_token), effectively disabling the Google Meet integration on the site. | ||||
| CVE-2026-38057 | 1 St Engineering Idirect | 3 3315-series, 9-series Terminals, Evolution Iq‑series Terminals | 2026-07-13 | 8.1 High |
| The iDirect iQ200 does not validate CSRF tokens on state-changing API endpoints after authentication. The /api/reboot endpoint accepts POST requests authenticated solely by a session cookie that lacks the SameSite attribute. A remote attacker can host a malicious web page that, when visited by an authenticated administrator, automatically submits a cross-site POST request causing an immediate device reboot and satellite link loss. Repeated attacks can sustain a denial-of-service condition. | ||||
| CVE-2026-61956 | 2 Hamsalam, Wordpress | 2 ووسلام – همگام سازی ووکامرس و باسلام, Wordpress | 2026-07-13 | 7.1 High |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in hamsalam ووسلام – همگام سازی ووکامرس و باسلام sync-basalam allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects ووسلام – همگام سازی ووکامرس و باسلام: from n/a through <= 1.9.1. | ||||
| CVE-2026-15070 | 2026-07-10 | 8.8 High | ||
| The Salon Booking System – Free Version plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 10.30.32. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the setCustomText function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary PHP code into the web-accessible translate-constants.php file within the plugin directory, enabling remote code execution on the server via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. sanitize_text_field() is applied to the POST 'value' parameter but does not neutralize the characters — single quotes, parentheses, semicolons, $, and [] — required to break out of the PHP string literal into which the value is interpolated before being written to disk via file_put_contents(). | ||||
| CVE-2026-58143 | 1 Cotonti | 1 Cotonti | 2026-07-10 | 8.8 High |
| Cotonti Siena 0.9.26 and earlier contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to modify administrator configuration by tricking a logged-in administrator into submitting a forged POST request to the admin.php config update handler, which never invokes the application's CSRF validation function. Attackers can disable the PFS module's file extension whitelist by setting pfsfilecheck to 0, enabling any user with PFS access to upload and execute arbitrary PHP files on the server. | ||||
| CVE-2026-49471 | 1 Oraios | 1 Serena | 2026-07-10 | 8.3 High |
| Serena is a powerful MCP toolkit for coding that provides semantic retrieval and editing capabilities. Prior to v1.5.2, Serena's built-in web dashboard exposes an unauthenticated Flask API on a fixed, predictable port, with no authentication, no CSRF protection, and no Host header validation. A DNS rebinding attack allows a malicious webpage to reach this API from any browser and write arbitrary content to the agent's persistent memory store, which the agent reads and acts on autonomously. Combined with execute_shell_command using shell=True, this creates a remote code execution chain requiring only that the victim visit a malicious webpage while Serena is running. This issue is fixed in version v1.5.2. | ||||
| CVE-2026-9731 | 2 Wordpress, Wpkuf | 2 Wordpress, Wp Js Detect | 2026-07-10 | 4.3 Medium |
| The Wp Js Detect plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.9. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the plugin_settings function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the plugin's notification text and CSS settings (wp_non_js_notification_text and wp_non_js_notification_css), injecting arbitrary content that is echoed unescaped on the frontend via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. | ||||
| CVE-2026-12002 | 2 Smub, Wordpress | 2 Smash Balloon Social Photo Feed – Easy Social Feeds Plugin, Wordpress | 2026-07-10 | 4.7 Medium |
| The Smash Balloon Social Photo Feed – Easy Social Feeds Plugin plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 6.11.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the maybe_connection_data function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to overwrite the site's Instagram and Facebook oEmbed access tokens via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. | ||||
| CVE-2026-4275 | 2 Badhonrocks, Wordpress | 2 Divi Torque Lite – Divi Modules For The Divi Builder & Theme, Wordpress | 2026-07-10 | 8.8 High |
| The Divi Torque Lite – Divi Theme, Divi Builder & Extra Theme plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 4.2.3. This is due to the use of '__return_true' as the permission_callback for the /install_plugin and /activate_plugin REST API endpoints, which bypasses WordPress's built-in REST API nonce verification. Although the endpoint callbacks contain internal current_user_can() checks, the absence of nonce verification means that a forged cross-site request from a logged-in administrator's browser will pass the capability check via the admin's session cookies. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to install arbitrary plugins from WordPress. | ||||
| CVE-2026-44342 | 1 Quantumnous | 1 New-api | 2026-07-09 | 5.3 Medium |
| New API is a large language mode (LLM) gateway and artificial intelligence (AI) asset management system. Prior to 0.12.0-alpha.1, the email and WeChat account binding endpoints GET /api/oauth/email/bind and GET /api/oauth/wechat/bind used GET requests for state-changing account operations, allowing an attacker to trigger a logged-in user's browser to bind an attacker-controlled email address or OAuth identity in deployments where session cookies could be sent on cross-site navigations. This issue is fixed in version 0.12.0-alpha.1. | ||||
| CVE-2026-59148 | 1 Mockoon | 1 Mockoon | 2026-07-09 | 8.8 High |
| Mockoon provides way to design and run mock APIs. Prior to 9.7.0, Mockoon's admin API in commons-server/src/libs/server/admin-api.ts is mounted on the same Express listener as user-defined mock routes, enabled by default in shipped runtimes, serves Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * with write methods allowed, and has no authentication. Any unauthenticated caller who can reach the mock server port can read MOCKOON_* environment variables, write arbitrary process environment variables through /mockoon-admin/env-vars, rewrite mock route bodies, statuses, and headers through PUT /mockoon-admin/environment, read transaction logs and SSE streams, and purge state. This issue is fixed in version 9.7.0. | ||||
| CVE-2026-5923 | 1 Hp Inc. | 3 Poly Ccx, Poly Edge E, Poly Trio C60 | 2026-07-09 | N/A |
| Malicious use of a stolen cookie might allow modifications to the contents of the IP phone’s webpage. | ||||
| CVE-2024-41597 | 1 Processwire | 1 Processwire | 2026-07-09 | 4.2 Medium |
| Cross Site Request Forgery vulnerability in ProcessWire v.3.0.229 allows a remote attacker to insert a comment. NOTE: this is disputed by the Supplier because the product intentionally accepts anonymous, unauthenticated comments and thus there are fewer situations in which CSRF would be a useful attack technique. Also, the submitted comments are, by default, held for moderator review. | ||||