共收录 223 条相关安全情报。
← 返回所有主题Nezha Monitoring is a self-hostable, lightweight, servers and websites monitoring and O&M tool. From version 1.0.0 to before version 2.0.14, cross-site GET request can trigger stored cron commands on a victim's agents. This issue has been patched in version 2.0.14.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
MISP contains an insecure default configuration in which the Security.check_sec_fetch_site_header control is disabled. When this setting is disabled, state-changing requests such as POST, PUT, or AJAX requests are not restricted based on the browser-provided Sec-Fetch-Site header. A remote unauthenticated attacker could craft a malicious web page that causes an authenticated MISP user’s browser to
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
MISP contains an insecure default configuration in which the Security.check_sec_fetch_site_header control is disabled. When this setting is disabled, state-changing requests such as POST, PUT, or AJAX requests are not restricted based on the browser-provided Sec-Fetch-Site header. A remote unauthenticated attacker could craft a malicious web page that causes an authenticated MISP user’s browser to
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Improper state verification in the OAuth implementation could allow an attacker to manipulate the authentication flow and cause a victim’s account to be linked to an attacker-controlled account. This can result in unauthorized account linking and potential account takeover.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Cross-Site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in weDevs WooCommerce Conversion Tracking allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects WooCommerce Conversion Tracking: from n/a through 2.0.10.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Cross-Site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in YITH YITH WooCommerce Product Slider Carousel allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects YITH WooCommerce Product Slider Carousel: from n/a through 1.16.0.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Cross-Site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Magepeople inc. WpEvently allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects WpEvently: from n/a through 4.1.2.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Yoast Duplicate Post through 4.6 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability in the duplicate_post_dismiss_notice handler, which verifies no nonce or capability. Attackers can trick any authenticated user into sending a request that sets the duplicate_post_show_notice site option, suppressing admin notices network-wide.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Easy Twitter Feeds before 1.2.13 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability in the duplicate_post action handler that lacks nonce verification. Attackers can trick an authenticated user into visiting a crafted link that duplicates any post regardless of post type.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
A cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability has been reported to affect Notification Center. The remote attackers can then exploit the vulnerability to gain privileges or hijack user identities. We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following version: Notification Center 1.10.0.3291 and later
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
该漏洞是一个影响 Notification Center 的跨站请求伪造（CSRF）漏洞。远程攻击者可以通过诱使用户点击恶意链接或访问恶意页面，在用户不知情的情况下以用户身份执行未经授权的操作，例如更改通知设置、发送伪造请求等。具体而言，Notification Center 未对关键操作实施有效的 CSRF 令牌验证或同源策略检查，导致攻击者可以构造恶意请求并利用用户当前会话进行权限提升或身份劫持。官方已在版本 1.10.0.3291 及之后修复了此漏洞。建议用户立即升级到该版本或更高版本。由于 CSRF 攻击通常需要用户交互（如点击链接），且利用条件较高，但一旦成功可能造成用户数据泄露或账户被控制。目前没有迹象表明该漏洞已被在野利用或公开武器化（KEV 及在野利用标记均为 False）。
💡 影响/原因: CSRF 漏洞可导致用户身份被劫持，攻击者能在未授权情况下执行敏感操作，影响 Notification Center 的用户账户安全。
SemCms 5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) via crafted POST request to /admin/semcms_user.php.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The WP Meta Sort Posts plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 0.9. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the top-level included script in msp-options.php. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to change the plugin's msp_loop_file and msp_nav_location settings via a forged request via a forged request g
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The WP Emoticon Rating plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on a 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 suc
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The WpMobi plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 0.0.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the handleSaveGeneralSettings function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify the plugin's General Settings and inject arbitrary web scripts into the administrator's browser via the unescaped app_na
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The WP-Ultimate-Map plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 1.1. This is due to missing nonce validation on the process_init() function hooked to admin_init, which saves plugin settings (zoom-level, focus-lat, focus-lng, sel_places, sel_routes) via update_option() based solely on the presence of a save-setting POST parameter. Additionally,
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The FastPicker, an order picker and order management system (oms) for WooCommerce on steroids plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the settingsPage function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify the plugin's settings, including toggling the webh
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The AJAX Report Comments plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.0.4. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the rc_options_page function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify plugin settings including link text and markup, success/failure/already-reported messages, comment threshold, cookie
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The jQuery Hover Footnotes plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.4. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the jqFootnotes_options_subpanel function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the plugin's settings with arbitrary values that, because option values such as jqfoot_anchor_open, jqf
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Every `/ui/*` POST / PUT / PATCH / DELETE route processes the request as soon as the session cookie validates. `SameSite=Lax` on the session cookie prevents most cross-site form submits but does not protect: - top-level form-submit navigations from third-party pages (some browsers still send Lax cookies on top-level POSTs) - same-registrable-domain attackers (sibling-subdomain XSS, subdomain take
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Akınsoft QR Menü allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects QR Menü: from s1.05.06 before v1.05.12.
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Frontend User Notes 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 or incorrect nonce validation on the funp_ajax_modify_notes function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to trick a logged-in user into visiting a malicious page, causing unauthorized overwriting of that victim's own note con
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The LatePoint – Calendar Booking Plugin for Appointments and Events plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 5.6.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the change_status function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to change the status of arbitrary invoices — including marking unpaid invoices as pai
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
该漏洞存在于WordPress的LatePoint日历预订插件（Appointments and Events）中，影响所有版本直至5.6.0（含）。问题源于change_status函数缺少或未正确实现nonce验证，导致跨站请求伪造（CSRF）攻击。未认证的攻击者可通过诱骗站点管理员点击恶意链接或访问恶意页面，伪造请求任意更改发票状态，包括将未付款发票标记为已付款。此漏洞允许攻击者绕过授权，干扰正常的支付流程。CVSS评分为4.3（中等），攻击向量为网络，无需认证，但需要用户交互（管理员点击链接）。影响仅涉及完整性（低），不涉及机密性和可用性。建议管理员立即将插件升级到最新版本（5.6.0之后），以修复nonce验证缺失的问题。由于是WordPress插件，攻击面较广，但利用条件需要管理员交互，紧急程度中等。无需限制网络暴露，但应谨慎处理未知链接。
💡 影响/原因: 攻击者可利用CSRF伪造管理员操作，将未支付发票标记为已支付，导致财务损失和业务逻辑混乱。影响大、利用简单，需及时打补丁。
The Frontend User Notes 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 or incorrect nonce validation on the funp_ajax_modify_notes function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to trick a logged-in user into visiting a malicious page, causing unauthorized overwriting of that victim's own note con
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Inappropriate implementation in UI in Google Chrome on Android prior to 149.0.7827.53 allowed a remote attacker to leak cross-origin data via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low)
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Inappropriate implementation in Autofill in Google Chrome prior to 149.0.7827.53 allowed a remote attacker to leak cross-origin data via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low)
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Inappropriate implementation in Chrome for iOS in Google Chrome on iOS prior to 149.0.7827.53 allowed a remote attacker to leak cross-origin data via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium)
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Inappropriate implementation in WebRTC in Google Chrome prior to 149.0.7827.53 allowed a remote attacker to leak cross-origin data via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium)
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Inappropriate implementation in MHTML in Google Chrome prior to 149.0.7827.53 allowed a remote attacker who convinced a user to engage in specific UI gestures to leak cross-origin data via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium)
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Inappropriate implementation in Network in Google Chrome prior to 149.0.7827.53 allowed a remote attacker to leak cross-origin data via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium)
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Inappropriate implementation in CSS in Google Chrome prior to 149.0.7827.53 allowed a remote attacker to leak cross-origin data via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium)
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Inappropriate implementation in CSS in Google Chrome prior to 149.0.7827.53 allowed a remote attacker to leak cross-origin data via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium)
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Inappropriate implementation in Media in Google Chrome prior to 149.0.7827.53 allowed a remote attacker to leak cross-origin data via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium)
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Inappropriate implementation in Password Manager in Google Chrome prior to 149.0.7827.53 allowed a remote attacker to leak cross-origin data via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium)
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Inappropriate implementation in Password Manager in Google Chrome prior to 149.0.7827.53 allowed a remote attacker to leak cross-origin data via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium)
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The EmergencyWP – Dead Man's switch & legacy deliverance plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.4.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the form_settings_ui (settings save handler, procedural include scope) function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify plugin settings including the min
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
CVE-2026-9732 影响 WordPress 插件 EmergencyWP – Dead Man's switch & legacy deliverance（版本 ≤1.4.2），是一个跨站请求伪造（CSRF）漏洞。漏洞源于函数 form_settings_ui 中缺少或错误的 nonce 验证，导致未认证的攻击者可以伪造请求，诱使站点管理员执行点击链接等操作，从而修改插件设置。攻击者可改变最低访问角色（通过 add_cap/remove_cap 修改 WordPress 角色权限）、启用或禁用卸载时删除数据标志、调整生命周期检查时间、强制电子邮件地址、确认页面 ID 以及日期/时间格式。由于 CSRF 需要管理员交互，CVSS 评分为 4.3（中等），攻击复杂度低，无需认证，但影响仅限于完整性，不波及机密性或可用性。目前该漏洞未被列入 KEV，也无在野利用报告。建议受影响用户立即更新至最新版本（或 1.4.2 以上），或在不使用该插件时将其删除，并教育管理员警惕可疑链接。
💡 影响/原因: 此 CSRF 漏洞允许攻击者在管理员不知情下篡改插件关键设置，可能导致权限提升或数据意外删除，需尽快修补。
OpenClaude is an open-source coding-agent command line interface for cloud and local model providers. Prior to version 0.5.1, the OpenClaude MCP authentication flow starts a temporary local HTTP server to handle OAuth callbacks. To prevent CSRF attacks, the server validates a state parameter against an internally stored value. However, due to a logic flaw in the order of conditionals, an attacker
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
NamelessMC is website software for Minecraft servers. In versions 2.2.4 and prior, the OAuth callback handling does not validate the state parameter server-side before exchanging the authorization code. This allows an attacker to capture a valid OAuth callback URL for their own account and cause a victim's browser to navigate to it, resulting in the victim's session being authenticated as the atta
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Remove NoFollow Commenter URL plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the gmz_comment_settings_save function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify the plugin's comment-display setting via a forged request via a forged request granted they can tri
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Google Plus One Bottom plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 0.0.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the googlePlusOneAdmin function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify the plugin's settings, including the plusone-lang, plusone-callback, and plusone-url options stored in the data
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Laiser Tag plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.2.5. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the addOptionsPageFields function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the plugin's settings, including the API key, tag blacklist, relevance threshold, batch size, and tagging toggles, via a
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Tectite Forms plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the admin_init function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify the plugin's settings, including the tectite_forms_button option, via a forged request via a forged request granted they can trick
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Remove meta boxes per user role plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.01. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the 'remove-meta-boxes-per-user-role' page. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify or reset the plugin's per-role meta box visibility settings via a forged request granted the
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The BirdSeed plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.2.0. This is due to missing nonce validation in the birdseed_plugin_settings_page() function. The function processes the 'birdseed_token' GET parameter and saves it to the database via update_option() without verifying a nonce. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers t
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
ZeusCart 4.0 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to perform unauthorized actions on behalf of victims by crafting malicious requests. Attackers can deactivate customer accounts via the admin interface by tricking users into visiting attacker-controlled pages that submit requests to the regstatus endpoint with action=deny parameters.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The DeepAI endpoint 'https://api.deepai.org/change_user_email' accepts POST requests without any CSRF protection. If an attacker can trick a logged-in user into clicking a malicious link, the attacker can change the user's email address and take over their account. Fixed on 2026-05-20.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
SOPlanning is vulnerable to Cross‑Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in groupe_save create, modify and delete endpoints. An attacker can craft a malicious website that, when visited by an authenticated user, automatically sends a forged GET or POST request to the application. This issue affects SOPlanning version 1.55 and below.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
## Summary The sensitive `mode=export` action in `modules/sso/keys.php` exports a PKCS#12 bundle containing the configured private key and certificate, but the CSRF validation line is commented out. A forged cross-site POST from an administrator session can therefore trigger private key export without a valid form token. ## Vulnerable Code Links - https://github.com/Admidio/admidio/blob/v5.0.9/
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
## Summary `modules/sso/clients.php` validates an `adm_csrf_token` on every state-changing branch except `enable`. The `enable` case loads the SAML or OIDC client by UUID, calls `$client->enable($enabled)`, and persists the new state with no token check. Because the action is reachable via plain GET parameters, a third-party page can trick an authenticated administrator into disabling (or silentl
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
## Summary `modules/registration.php` mode `send_login` regenerates a random password for `user_uuid_assigned`, stores its bcrypt hash in `adm_users.usr_password`, and emails the cleartext to that user. Every other state-changing mode in the same file (`assign_member`, `assign_user`, `delete_user`, `create_user`) calls `SecurityUtils::validateCsrfToken($_POST['adm_csrf_token'])` first; the `send_
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
PHP-SHOP 1.0 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows unauthenticated attackers to add administrative users by crafting malicious HTML forms. Attackers can trick authenticated administrators into visiting a page containing a hidden form that automatically submits POST requests to the users.php endpoint with parameters like name, email, password, and permissions set to admin
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
HaPe PKH 1.1 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to change administrator passwords by submitting forged requests to the user update endpoint. Attackers can craft malicious forms targeting the aksi_user.php script with parameters like id_user, password, and level to modify admin credentials without authentication.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
WWBN AVideo is an open source video platform. In 29.0 and earlier, there is a cross-site request forgery vulnerability on the 2FA toggle. plugin/LoginControl/set.json.php accepts POST type=set2FA value=false, calls LoginControl::setUser2FA(User::getId(), false) on the session-authenticated user, and returns. There is no forbidIfIsUntrustedRequest() call, no isTokenValid() check, no X-CSRF-Token/Sa
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Media Library Assistant plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 3.35 This is due to missing nonce verification on the bulk action handlers in the settings tab handlers. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to trick an administrator into performing bulk delete, edit, or purge operations on plugin settings and attachment
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Vulnerability in Oracle REST Data Services (component: Core). Supported versions that are affected are 24.2.0-26.1.0. Difficult to exploit vulnerability allows low privileged attacker with network access via HTTPS to compromise Oracle REST Data Services. Successful attacks require human interaction from a person other than the attacker and while the vulnerability is in Oracle REST Data Services,
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Budibase is an open-source low-code platform. Prior to 3.35.4, the buildMatcherRegex() / matches() functions in packages/backend-core/src/middleware/matchers.ts route patterns are compiled into unanchored regular expressions and tested against ctx.request.url, which includes the full query string. The CSRF middleware in the Budibase Worker uses this matching system to decide whether to skip CSRF t
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
A cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Jenkins Multijob Plugin 662.vd2e0001f6b_b_d and earlier allows attackers to resume failed Multijob builds.
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
A cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Jenkins GitHub Integration Plugin 0.7.3 and earlier allows attackers to attackers to trigger a build for a pull request.
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
A cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Jenkins Multijob Plugin 662.vd2e0001f6b_b_d and earlier allows attackers to resume failed Multijob builds.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
A cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Jenkins GitHub Integration Plugin 0.7.3 and earlier allows attackers to attackers to trigger a build for a pull request.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability was discovered in the delete.php endpoint of Jason2605 AdminPanel 4.0.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The MetaMagic SEO Plugin plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.6. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the metamagic_update_options function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify the plugin's SEO settings, including enabling or disabling the plugin and toggling description and keyword me
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The WP Promoter plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on a 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 clic
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities allow attackers to exploit a user's authenticated session to forge cross-site requests, inducing the execution of unintended operations such as tampering with configuration data.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The GoStats for WordPress plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.4. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the gostats_manage() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the plugin's settings (gostats_siteid and gostats_server options) via a forged request granted they can trick a site
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The CDN Linker lite plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 1.3.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the ossdl_off_options() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the plugin's settings — including the CDN URL used to rewrite all static asset references on the site — via a forged requ
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Search Simple Fields plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 0.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the search_simple_fields_options() function in functions_admin.php. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify the plugin's settings — including post types to search in, custom fields, media fiel
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The auto making JSON-LD plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 4.5.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the amJL_certification function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the plugin's license key option, and subsequently trigger license validation and pro feature installation on the v
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The WP AutoBuzz 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 a 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 cl
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Two-factor authentication (formerly IP Vault) plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the ipv_save_changes function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify the plugin's firewall and two-factor authentication settings — including the operating mode,
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Genzel breadcrumbs plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the _options_page function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the plugin's breadcrumb configuration, including templates, delimiter, home label, home URI, and breadcrumb rules via a fo
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Old Posts Highlighter plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the OPH_options function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the plugin's configuration settings without authorization via a forged request granted they can trick a site administra
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The CM Ad Changer – A simple tool to control and optimize your site's banners plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.0.7. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the cmac_campaigns_action function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to permanently delete arbitrary advertising campaigns, including th
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
A security flaw has been discovered in SourceCodester CET Automated Grading System with AI Predictive Analytics 1.0. This affects an unknown function. Performing a manipulation results in cross-site request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks.
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
A security flaw has been discovered in SourceCodester CET Automated Grading System with AI Predictive Analytics 1.0. This affects an unknown function. Performing a manipulation results in cross-site request forgery. The attack is possible to be carried out remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Lack of CSRF token validation lead to a CSRF attack vector in the admin activation endpoint of com_users.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
e107 is a content management system (CMS). Prior to 2.3.5, e107 CMS does not properly enforce CSRF token validation on comment moderation actions. The problem comes down to how session_handler::check() handles CSRF tokens. Instead of requiring a token on every state-changing request, it only validates the token if one happens to be present. If there is no token at all, the check is skipped entirel
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Zohocorp Zoho Mail wordpress plugin is vulnerable to Cross-Site request forgery (CSRF). This issue affects Zoho Mail wordpress plugin versions before 1.6.2.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in bgermann CformsII allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects CformsII: from n/a through 15.1.3.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Convers Lab WPSubscription allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects WPSubscription: from n/a through 1.9.1.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in WpDevArt Organization chart allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects Organization chart: from n/a through 1.7.5.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Recorp Export WP Page to Static HTML/CSS allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects Export WP Page to Static HTML/CSS: from n/a through 6.0.0.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
A security flaw has been discovered in SourceCodester Student Grades Management System 1.0. This affects an unknown part. The manipulation results in cross-site request forgery. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been released to the public and may be used for attacks.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Widget Context plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.3.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the save_widget_context_settings function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify widget visibility context settings stored in the WordPress options table via a forged POST request to /wp-adm
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Widget Context插件（WordPress）在所有版本（≤1.3.3）中存在跨站请求伪造（CSRF）漏洞。根因是save_widget_context_settings函数缺少或无效的nonce验证。攻击者可构造恶意POST请求发送至/wp-admin/widgets.php，在诱骗网站管理员点击链接后，以管理员的身份修改存储在WordPress选项表中的小工具可见性上下文设置。攻击者无需认证即可利用，但需要用户交互（管理员点击）。成功利用可导致小工具显示条件被篡改，影响网站内容的可见性控制。虽然CVSS评分4.3（中等），但结合社会工程学攻击可能产生实际危害。建议立即升级到1.3.3以上版本，或禁用不信任的CSRF保护插件。由于插件开发者应已发布修复，管理员应尽快更新。目前无在野利用报告。
💡 影响/原因: CSRF漏洞允许未授权攻击者修改网站小工具设置，可能导致内容隐藏、钓鱼或信息泄露。尽管需要管理员点击链接，但结合邮件钓鱼等手法，攻击面不可忽视。
The Alfie – Feed Plugin plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.2.1. This is due to missing nonce validation on the alfie_manage() function which handles feed deletion via the 'delete' GET parameter. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to delete arbitrary plugin feed data (from alfie_colindex, alfie_producten, alfie_
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
WordPress 插件 Alfie – Feed Plugin 在 1.2.1 及更早版本中存在跨站请求伪造 (CSRF) 漏洞。该漏洞源于 alfie_manage() 函数在处理通过 'delete' GET 参数进行源删除时缺少 nonce 验证。攻击者可以伪造请求，诱导站点管理员执行点击链接等操作，从而在未授权的情况下删除插件数据库（包括 alfie_colindex、alfie_producten、alfie_reactions、alfie_searchproduct 表）中的任意数据。CVSS 评分为 4.3 (中等)，攻击复杂度低，需要用户交互，对系统可用性无直接威胁，但可能造成数据完整性损坏。该漏洞尚未被列入已知利用目录 (KEV)，也未在野利用。建议尽快升级插件到已修复版本，或禁用该插件，并在管理后台加强 CSRF 防护。
💡 影响/原因: 尽管需要社工配合，但若攻击成功，可造成不可逆的数据删除，影响依赖该插件的网站正常运营。
Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/dialog/express/association/reorder. The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting.
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/dialog/logs/bulk/delete. The The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting.
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/dialog/page/bulk/cache. The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting.
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/backend/file addFavoriteFolder($id). The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting.
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/dialog/page/bulk/design. The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting.
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/dialog/event/duplicate. The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting.
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/backend/file star(). The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting.
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/dialog/page/bulk/delete. The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting.
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/backend/file rescanMultiple(). The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting.
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/backend/file rescan(). The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting.
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/backend/file removeFavoriteFolder($id). The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting.
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/dialog/logs/delete. The The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting.
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/backend/file approveVersion(). The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting.
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9.5.0 and below is vulnerable to unauthorized file deletion due to an Inverted CSRF token check in the DeleteFile controller. The code throws an error when the token IS valid and proceeds with file deletion when the token is invalid or missing. This effectively disables CSRF protection for the file deletion endpoint, allowing cross-site request forgery attacks against users who have
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/backend/file approveVersion(). The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/backend/file rescanMultiple(). The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/backend/file rescan(). The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/backend/file star(). The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/backend/file removeFavoriteFolder($id). The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/backend/file addFavoriteFolder($id). The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/dialog/express/association/reorder. The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/dialog/event/duplicate. The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/dialog/page/bulk/design. The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/dialog/page/bulk/cache. The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/dialog/page/bulk/delete. The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/dialog/logs/bulk/delete. The The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9 before 9.5.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) at concrete/controllers/dialog/logs/delete. The The Concrete CMS security team gave this vulnerability a CVSS v.4.0 score of 2.3 with vector CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N. Thanks Yonatan Drori (Tenzai) for reporting.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9.5.0 and below is vulnerable to unauthorized file deletion due to an Inverted CSRF token check in the DeleteFile controller. The code throws an error when the token IS valid and proceeds with file deletion when the token is invalid or missing. This effectively disables CSRF protection for the file deletion endpoint, allowing cross-site request forgery attacks against users who have
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9.5.0 and below emits a CSRF token in the local_available_update.php view ($token->output('do_update')) but the corresponding do_update() method in concrete/controllers/single_page/dashboard/system/update/update.php never calls $this->token->validate('do_update'). The form is rendered as a POST form, meaning the token reaches the browser, but because the controller discards it without
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9.5.0 and below does not validate a CSRF token before processing requests to /dashboard/extend/update/prepare_remote_upgrade/. An attacker who controls the remote package returned for a known marketplace item ID can overwrite the package PHP on disk and force its upgrade() method to execute in a single browser navigation. This results in remote code execution as the web server user.
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9.5.0 and below does not validate a CSRF token before processing requests to /dashboard/extend/update/do_update/. The do_update() method in concrete/controllers/single_page/dashboard/extend/update.php checks only canInstallPackages() before executing upgradeCoreData() and upgrade() on the named package's controller. Because the endpoint is a state-changing GET route with no token enfo
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9.5.0 and below contains a CSRF vulnerability in the install_package() method of concrete/controllers/single_page/dashboard/extend/install.php. An attacker who can cause an authenticated administrator to visit a crafted page, and who has placed or caused a package to be present under DIR_PACKAGES//, can force the installation of that package without any CSRF protection. Package inst
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9.5.0 and below does not validate a CSRF token before processing requests to /dashboard/extend/install/download/. The download() method in concrete/controllers/single_page/dashboard/extend/install.php checks only the canInstallPackages() permission before fetching a remote marketplace package and writing it to the server's DIR_PACKAGES directory. Because the endpoint is a state-changi
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9.5.0 and below emits a CSRF token in the local_available_update.php view ($token->output('do_update')) but the corresponding do_update() method in concrete/controllers/single_page/dashboard/system/update/update.php never calls $this->token->validate('do_update'). The form is rendered as a POST form, meaning the token reaches the browser, but because the controller discards it without
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9.5.0 and below does not validate a CSRF token before processing requests to /dashboard/extend/update/prepare_remote_upgrade/. An attacker who controls the remote package returned for a known marketplace item ID can overwrite the package PHP on disk and force its upgrade() method to execute in a single browser navigation. This results in remote code execution as the web server user.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9.5.0 and below contains a CSRF vulnerability in the install_package() method of concrete/controllers/single_page/dashboard/extend/install.php. An attacker who can cause an authenticated administrator to visit a crafted page, and who has placed or caused a package to be present under DIR_PACKAGES//, can force the installation of that package without any CSRF protection. Package inst
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9.5.0 and below does not validate a CSRF token before processing requests to /dashboard/extend/update/do_update/. The do_update() method in concrete/controllers/single_page/dashboard/extend/update.php checks only canInstallPackages() before executing upgradeCoreData() and upgrade() on the named package's controller. Because the endpoint is a state-changing GET route with no token enfo
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Concrete CMS 9.5.0 and below does not validate a CSRF token before processing requests to /dashboard/extend/install/download/. The download() method in concrete/controllers/single_page/dashboard/extend/install.php checks only the canInstallPackages() permission before fetching a remote marketplace package and writing it to the server's DIR_PACKAGES directory. Because the endpoint is a state-changi
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Mattermost Mobile Apps versions <=2.37 11.4 2.0.37 11.0.4 11.1.3 11.3.2 10.11.11.0 fail to properly validate the SSO authentication callback origin which allows an attacker controlling a malicious Mattermost server to steal user credentials for a legitimate Mattermost server via relaying the SSO code exchange flow through the mobile application. Mattermost Advisory ID: MMSA-2025-00564
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in InfoScale v.9.1.3 Operations Manager (VIOM) allows an attacker to force the user with an active session into clicking a malicious HTML link, which triggers unintended modifications on VIOM web application without the user's knowledge.
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in InfoScale v.9.1.3 Operations Manager (VIOM) allows an attacker to force the user with an active session into clicking a malicious HTML link, which triggers unintended modifications on VIOM web application without the user's knowledge.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Cross-Site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Sitemio Information Technologies Trade Ltd. Co. WISECP allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects WISECP: through 20022026. NOTE: The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Anomify AI – Anomaly Detection and Alerting plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) leading to Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) in versions up to and including 0.3.6. This is due to missing nonce verification on the settings page handler and insufficient output escaping in the admin_options.php template. The settings form includes no wp_nonce_field() and the ha
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Games Catalog plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 1.2.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the gc_crud() function which handles the delete action (action=delete) via a GET request without any wp_verify_nonce() / check_admin_referer() call. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to delete arbitrar
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The BLOGCHAT Chat System plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.3.6.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on a 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
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Remove Yellow BGBOX plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the 'rybb_api_settings' page. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to reset the plugin's stored settings by overwriting its configuration via a forged request granted they can trick a site adminis
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Amazon Scraper plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on a 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 c
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The JaviBola Custom Theme Test plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.0.5. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the options page. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to change the site's active theme by modifying the jbct_theme option via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrato
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Word 2 Cash plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery leading to Stored Cross-Site Scripting in versions up to and including 0.9.2. This is due to the complete absence of nonce verification on the settings save handler in the w2c_admin() function, combined with missing input sanitization before storage and missing output escaping when rendering the stored value. The w2c-
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Sentence To SEO (keywords, description and tags) plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the create_admin_page() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject malicious web scripts and update plugin settings via a forged request granted they can
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Child Height Predictor by Ostheimer plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to and including 1.3. This is due to missing nonce verification in the options() function, which handles plugin settings updates. The form template does not include a wp_nonce_field() call, and the handler never calls check_admin_referer() or wp_verify_nonce(). This makes it
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Bottom Bar plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to and including 0.1.7. This is due to missing nonce verification on the plugin's settings update forms handled in bottom-bar-admin.php. None of the three settings forms (main settings, sharing services, restore defaults) include a wp_nonce_field(), and the server-side processing code never calls che
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Bigfishgames Syndicate plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the bigfishgames_syndicate_submenu() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to reset plugin settings and update them via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator int
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Remove Yellow BGBOX plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the 'rybb_api_settings' page. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to reset the plugin's stored settings by overwriting its configuration via a forged request granted they can trick a site adminis
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The JaviBola Custom Theme Test plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.0.5. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the options page. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to change the site's active theme by modifying the jbct_theme option via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrato
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The BLOGCHAT Chat System plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.3.6.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on a 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
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Amazon Scraper plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on a 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 c
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Games Catalog plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 1.2.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the gc_crud() function which handles the delete action (action=delete) via a GET request without any wp_verify_nonce() / check_admin_referer() call. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to delete arbitrar
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Bigfishgames Syndicate plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the bigfishgames_syndicate_submenu() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to reset plugin settings and update them via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator int
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Bottom Bar plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to and including 0.1.7. This is due to missing nonce verification on the plugin's settings update forms handled in bottom-bar-admin.php. None of the three settings forms (main settings, sharing services, restore defaults) include a wp_nonce_field(), and the server-side processing code never calls che
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Child Height Predictor by Ostheimer plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to and including 1.3. This is due to missing nonce verification in the options() function, which handles plugin settings updates. The form template does not include a wp_nonce_field() call, and the handler never calls check_admin_referer() or wp_verify_nonce(). This makes it
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Word 2 Cash plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery leading to Stored Cross-Site Scripting in versions up to and including 0.9.2. This is due to the complete absence of nonce verification on the settings save handler in the w2c_admin() function, combined with missing input sanitization before storage and missing output escaping when rendering the stored value. The w2c-
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Sentence To SEO (keywords, description and tags) plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the create_admin_page() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject malicious web scripts and update plugin settings via a forged request granted they can
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
### Impact Turborepo's self-hosted login and SSO browser flows did not validate a CSRF state value on the localhost callback. While the CLI was waiting for authentication, a malicious web page could send a request to the local callback server with an attacker-controlled token. If accepted before the legitimate callback, the CLI could complete login with the wrong credentials. This affects users
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
In ScadaBR version 1.2.0, a CSRF vulnerability could allow an attacker to trigger any authenticated action through a victim's session by luring any logged-in user to a malicious webpage.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
## Summary dynoxide's MCP HTTP transport was vulnerable to DNS rebinding via its transitive `rmcp` dependency, plus a related cross-origin CSRF gap. A malicious web page could make the user's browser send requests to a local `dynoxide mcp --http` or `dynoxide serve --mcp` server with a non-loopback `Host` header, which the server would then process. Affects 0.9.3 to 0.9.12. The stdio transport (`
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Joomla JoomOCShop 1.0 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to perform unauthorized actions on behalf of authenticated users. Attackers can craft malicious HTML forms targeting account endpoints like /joomoc2/?route=account/edit and to modify user information or reset passwords without user consent.
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Joomla! Component Js Jobs 1.2.0 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to perform state-changing actions without token validation. Attackers can craft malicious HTML forms targeting administrative endpoints like job.jobenforcedelete to delete job entries or modify component settings when administrators visit attacker-controlled pages.
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Zechat 1.5 contains a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability that allows an attacker to change a user's information by bypassing anti-CSRF protections. The application uses a CSRF token, but an attacker can use the hashtag parameter to inject an encoded payload and bypass the CSRF protection, allowing for unauthorized changes to user data. This can be exploited by tricking a user into sub
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Joomla jCart for OpenCart 2.3.0.2 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to modify user account information without authentication. Attackers can craft malicious HTML forms targeting endpoints , and to change user credentials, passwords, and affiliate account details when victims visit the attacker-controlled page.
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
TP-Link TL-WR720N wireless router contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to perform unauthorized administrative actions by crafting malicious web requests. Attackers can modify port forwarding rules via VirtualServerRpm.htm or change WiFi security settings via WlanSecurityRpm.htm by tricking authenticated users into visiting attacker-controlled pages.
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
bloofoxCMS 0.5.2.1 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to perform administrative actions by tricking logged-in users into visiting malicious pages. Attackers can craft hidden forms targeting the admin user creation endpoint to add new administrative accounts with arbitrary credentials without requiring explicit user consent.
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
TextPattern CMS 4.9.0-dev contains a remote code execution vulnerability that allows authenticated attackers to upload arbitrary PHP files by exploiting the plugin upload functionality. Attackers can authenticate, retrieve a CSRF token from the plugin event page, and upload malicious PHP files to the textpattern/tmp/ directory for code execution.
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
TextPattern CMS 4.9.0-dev 存在一个远程代码执行漏洞。攻击者首先需要进行认证，然后从插件事件页面获取 CSRF 令牌，利用插件上传功能上传恶意的 PHP 文件到 textpattern/tmp/ 目录，从而实现代码执行。该漏洞的 CVSS 评分为 8.8（高），攻击复杂度低，权限要求低，无需用户交互，影响机密性、完整性和可用性。建议受影响用户立即升级到官方发布的修复版本；如无法升级，应限制插件上传功能的访问权限，并加强对上传文件的审查。由于该漏洞需要认证，建议对管理员账户启用多因素认证，并监控异常的文件上传行为。
💡 影响/原因: 该漏洞允许认证攻击者在服务器上执行任意代码，可能导致完全控制服务器、数据泄露或进一步横向移动，风险极高。
bloofoxCMS 0.5.2.1 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to perform administrative actions by tricking logged-in users into visiting malicious pages. Attackers can craft hidden forms targeting the admin user creation endpoint to add new administrative accounts with arbitrary credentials without requiring explicit user consent.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Open WebUI 是一个自托管的人工智能平台，设计为完全离线运行。在 0.9.3 版本之前，其图像上传功能存在一个应用程序范围内的跨站请求伪造（CSRF）漏洞。攻击者可以通过设置一个指向恶意端点的图像 URL，诱使受害者查看该图像（例如头像），从而在受害者不知情的情况下代表受害者发送 GET 请求。该漏洞可被任何已认证用户利用，任何查看该图像的用户的浏览器都会向攻击者控制的 URL 发送请求。这可能导致 Cookie 窃取、拒绝服务（DoS）或其他恶意操作。该漏洞的 CVSS 评分为 4.6，属于中等严重程度。目前没有证据表明该漏洞已被在野利用。受影响的版本为所有早于 0.9.3 的 Open WebUI 版本。修复版本为 0.9.3，建议用户立即升级。临时缓解措施包括限制网络暴露、实施额外的 CSRF 防护机制如使用 SameSite Cookie 和验证 Referer 头。
💡 影响/原因: 该 CSRF 漏洞可被低权限认证用户利用，影响所有查看恶意图像的用户，可能造成 Cookie 窃取或服务中断。
## Summary **Type:** Cross-site request forgery on the 2FA toggle. `plugin/LoginControl/set.json.php` accepts `POST type=set2FA value=false`, calls `LoginControl::setUser2FA(User::getId(), false)` on the session-authenticated user, and returns. There is no `forbidIfIsUntrustedRequest()` call, no `isTokenValid()` check, no `X-CSRF-Token`/`SameSite` enforcement, and no re-authentication step. A cro
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
### Am I affected? Users are affected if all of the following are true: - The application uses `better-auth` at a version below `1.6.2` (or `@better-auth/sso` paired with such a version). - `betterAuth({ account: { storeStateStrategy } })` is set to `"cookie"`. The default `"database"` is not affected. - The application wires at least one OAuth provider through `genericOAuth({ config })` with `p
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Turborepo is a high-performance build system for JavaScript and TypeScript codebases. Prior to 2.9.14, Turborepo's self-hosted login and SSO browser flows did not validate a CSRF state value on the localhost callback. While the CLI was waiting for authentication, a malicious web page could send a request to the local callback server with an attacker-controlled token. If accepted before the legitim
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Notify Odoo plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the _updateSettings function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to change the Notify Odoo URL to an attacker-controlled URL and modify notification, tracking image, and allowed IP address settings vi
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Notify Odoo plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the _updateSettings function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to change the Notify Odoo URL to an attacker-controlled URL and modify notification, tracking image, and allowed IP address settings vi
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Cross-site request forgery vulnerability exists in Musetheque V4 Information Disclosure for IPKNOWLEDGE V4L1 rev2203.0 and earlier. If a user views a malicious page while logged-in to the affected product, unexpected operations may be done.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The LatePoint plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to and including 5.3.2. This is due to missing nonce verification on the request_cancellation() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to cancel a logged-in customer's bookings via a forged request, granted they can trick the customer into performing an action such as clicking
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
GitLab has remediated an issue in GitLab CE/EE affecting all versions from 11.10 before 18.9.7, 18.10 before 18.10.6, and 18.11 before 18.11.3 that could have allowed an unauthenticated user to create unauthorized Jira subscriptions for a targeted user's namespace via a specially crafted link due to missing CSRF protection.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The locally served web site on the Garmin WDU (v1 1.4.6 and v2 5.0) allows a cross-site origin WebSocket hijacking attack. Among other uses, the WDU utilizes WebSockets to control settings, including administrative settings. This allows a network attacker to take full control of a WDU. To initiate an exploit of this vulnerability, the victim must (1) be utilizing a web browser on a multihomed host
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
MISP modules are autonomous modules that can be used to extend MISP for new services. In 3.0.7 and earlier, a Cross-Site Request Forgery vulnerability in the MISP Modules website allowed an attacker to cause an authenticated user to submit unintended requests to the home endpoint. The vulnerability was due to the home blueprint being exempted from CSRF protection. This could allow modification of
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
CKAN is an open-source DMS (data management system) for powering data hubs and data portals. Prior to 2.10.10 and 2.11.5, Access to the views via tokens or unauthenticated requests marked the endpoint as not requiring CSRF protection. The marking was a member variable in flask-wtf.csrf.CSRFProtect(), which was stored as a module level variable in the flask_app middleware. This API was never intend
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
A cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the dashboard of the BIG-IP Configuration utility. Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Easy2Pilot 7 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to add unauthorized user accounts by tricking authenticated administrators into visiting malicious pages. Attackers can craft HTML forms targeting the admin.php?action=add_user endpoint with POST requests containing username and password parameters to create new administrative accounts without explicit user cons
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
ChurchCRM is an open-source church management system. Prior to 7.3.2, top-level cross-site GET navigation from an attacker-controlled page to FundRaiserDelete.php, PropertyTypeDelete.php, or NoteDelete.php causes a logged-in ChurchCRM user with the relevant role to silently delete records, including cascaded property and record-to-property assignments. This vulnerability is fixed in 7.3.2.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Warpgate is an open source SSH, HTTPS and MySQL bastion host for Linux. Prior to 0.23.3, the SSO flow does not validate the state parameter, which makes it possible for an attacker to trick a user into logging into the attacker's account, possibly convincing them to perform sensitive actions on the attacker's account (such as writing sensitive data to the attacker's SSH target, or logging into an
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
ChurchCRM is an open-source church management system. Prior to 7.3.2, UserEditor.php processes user account creation and permission updates entirely through $_POST parameters with no CSRF token validation. An unauthenticated attacker can craft a malicious HTML page that, when visited by an authenticated administrator, silently elevates any low-privilege user to full administrator or creates a new
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
# OAuth State Validation Bypass via `error` Parameter Causes Local Server DoS in MCP Auth Callback --- ## Description The OpenClaude MCP authentication flow starts a temporary local HTTP server to handle OAuth callbacks. To prevent CSRF attacks, the server validates a `state` parameter against an internally stored value. However, due to a logic flaw in the order of conditionals, an attacker can
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
该漏洞影响 Backdrop CMS 的 Salesforce 模块（版本 1.x-1.0.1 之前）。模块未正确使用随机 state 参数保护 OAuth 授权流，导致跨站请求伪造（CSRF）漏洞。攻击者可诱使已登录管理员访问恶意页面或链接，利用该漏洞伪造授权请求，从而劫持 OAuth 流程，实现未授权操作，如窃取 Salesforce 数据、修改配置或执行高权限动作。该漏洞 CVSS 评分为 7.1，属于高严重性（AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:L），攻击复杂度较高，需要用户交互。修复版本为 1.x-1.0.1，建议所有受影响用户立即升级。此外，可考虑限制管理后台的暴露范围，降低攻击面。
💡 影响/原因: 该漏洞允许攻击者绕过 CSRF 保护，劫持 OAuth 授权流，可能泄露敏感数据或篡改配置，威胁网站与 Salesforce 集成的安全性。
Due to insufficient CSRF protection in SAP BusinessObjects Business Intelligence Platform ,an authenticated user could be tricked by an attacker to send unintended requests to the web server. This has low impact on integrity and availability of the application. There is no impact on confidentiality of the data.
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
该漏洞影响 SAP BusinessObjects Business Intelligence Platform，源于跨站请求伪造（CSRF）防护不足。攻击者可以诱使已认证用户发送非预期的 HTTP 请求到目标 Web 服务器，从而在用户不知情的情况下执行某些操作。CVSS 评分为 5.4，属于中等严重级别，攻击复杂度低，无需特权，但需要用户交互。漏洞仅对应用的完整性和可用性造成低影响，机密性不受影响。目前尚无证据表明该漏洞已被在野利用或列入已知被利用漏洞目录（KEV）。受影响版本未明确，建议 SAP BusinessObjects 用户尽快关注厂商安全公告并应用补丁。临时缓解措施包括限制 Web 服务器的网络暴露、启用 CSRF 令牌以及教育用户警惕可疑链接。
💡 影响/原因: CSRF 漏洞可导致已认证用户在不知情下执行恶意操作，影响业务报表平台的完整性和可用性。尽管影响程度为低，但攻击门槛低，仍需及时修复。
Outline is a service that allows for collaborative documentation. Prior to 1.7.1, the Slack integration callback for GET /auth/slack.post accepts an unsigned, session-independent OAuth state value. A third party who can obtain a Slack OAuth code for the same Outline Slack client can make a logged-in Outline user complete the callback and link that user's Outline account to the attacker's Slack tea
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
WWBN AVideo is an open source video platform. In versions up to and including 29.0, objects/userSavePhoto.php is a legacy profile-photo endpoint that accepts a base64 POST parameter and writes the decoded bytes to videos/userPhoto/photo.png. Its only access control is User::isLogged(). It does not end in .json.php, so it is excluded from the project's global autoCSRFGuard (which is suffix-scoped i
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
WordPress Plugin Curtain 1.0.2 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to activate or deactivate site maintenance mode by crafting malicious requests. Attackers can trick authenticated administrators into submitting forged requests to the options-general.php page with curtain parameters to toggle maintenance mode without valid nonce validation.
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
OpenCart 3.0.36 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability in the /account/edit endpoint that allows unauthenticated attackers to modify victim account details by tricking users into visiting malicious pages. Attackers can craft CSRF payloads that change victim email addresses and account information, then use password reset functionality to gain unauthorized access to compromised account
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
OpenCart 3.0.3.7 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to change user passwords by sending crafted requests to the account/password endpoint. Attackers can trick authenticated users into submitting hidden forms with new password values in the 'password' and 'confirm' parameters to hijack accounts.
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
WordPress Plugin Curtain 1.0.2 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to activate or deactivate site maintenance mode by crafting malicious requests. Attackers can trick authenticated administrators into submitting forged requests to the options-general.php page with curtain parameters to toggle maintenance mode without valid nonce validation.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
OpenCart 3.0.3.7 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to change user passwords by sending crafted requests to the account/password endpoint. Attackers can trick authenticated users into submitting hidden forms with new password values in the 'password' and 'confirm' parameters to hijack accounts.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
OpenCart 3.0.36 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability in the /account/edit endpoint that allows unauthenticated attackers to modify victim account details by tricking users into visiting malicious pages. Attackers can craft CSRF payloads that change victim email addresses and account information, then use password reset functionality to gain unauthorized access to compromised account
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
A security vulnerability has been detected in osTicket up to 1.18.3. Impacted is an unknown function of the file include/class.dispatcher.php of the component Dispatcher. The manipulation of the argument _method leads to cross-site request forgery. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early t
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
A security vulnerability has been detected in osTicket up to 1.18.3. Impacted is an unknown function of the file include/class.dispatcher.php of the component Dispatcher. The manipulation of the argument _method leads to cross-site request forgery. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early t
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Emlog is an open source website building system. Prior to version 2.6.11, missing CSRF protection in critical admin functions allows attackers to trick authenticated administrators into performing unauthorized actions like system registration, plugin management, and configuration changes. This issue has been patched in version 2.6.11.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
RedwoodSDK is a server-first React framework. From version 1.0.0-beta.50 to before version 1.2.3, server actions in rwsdk apply HTTP method enforcement but no origin validation. A request originating from a different origin that the browser treats as same-site can invoke a server action with the victim's session cookie attached. This issue has been patched in version 1.2.3.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Cross-Site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in DivvyDrive Information Technologies Inc. DivvyDrive allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects DivvyDrive: from 4.8.2.9 before 4.8.3.2.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
An improper input validation, together with an overly permissive default CORS configuration in Open Notebook v1.8.1 allows remote attacker to trick a legitimate user to alter or delete arbitrary database entries via specially crafted malicious URL. Depending on the deployment, data exfiltration is also possible.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in PluginUs.Net BEAR allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects BEAR: from n/a through 1.1.5.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in WPGraphQL allows Cross Site Request Forgery. This issue affects WPGraphQL: from n/a through 2.5.3.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Admidio is an open-source user management solution. Prior to version 5.0.9, several administrative operations in Admidio's preferences module (database backup, test email, htaccess generation) fire via GET requests with no CSRF token validation. Because SameSite=Lax cookies travel with top-level GET navigations, an attacker forces an authenticated admin to trigger these actions from a malicious pa
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Inappropriate implementation in MHTML in Google Chrome prior to 148.0.7778.96 allowed a remote attacker who convinced a user to engage in specific UI gestures to leak cross-origin data via a crafted MHTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low)
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The addfreespace plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 0.1.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on a 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 c
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The DX Sources 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 settings_page_build function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to trick a logged-in administrator into submitting a forged request that modifies the plugin's configuration options via a forged re
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Publish 2 Ping.fm plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the '/wp-admin/options-general.php?page=admin.php' page. 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 a
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Publish 2 Ping.fm plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the '/wp-admin/options-general.php?page=admin.php' page. 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 a
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The addfreespace plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 0.1.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on a 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 c
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The DX Sources 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 settings_page_build function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to trick a logged-in administrator into submitting a forged request that modifies the plugin's configuration options via a forged re
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
goshs is a SimpleHTTPServer written in Go. Prior to version 2.0.2, the PUT upload handler (httpserver/updown.go) lacks the CSRF token validation that was added to the POST upload handler during the CVE-2026-40883 fix. Combined with the unconditional Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * on the OPTIONS preflight handler (httpserver/server.go), any website can write arbitrary files to a goshs instance thro
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The WP Editor plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.2.9.2. This is due to missing nonce verification in the 'add_plugins_page' and 'add_themes_page' functions. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to overwrite arbitrary plugin and theme PHP files with attacker-controlled code via a forged request, granted they can t
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
The Ultimate Dashboard plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.8.14. This is due to a flawed nonce validation conditional in the 'handle_module_actions' function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to toggle plugin modules on or off via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the web management interface of the U-SPEED N300 Rounter V1.0.0. The device does not implement CSRF protection mechanisms such as anti-CSRF tokens or strict Origin/Referer validation for administrative API endpoints. An attacker can craft a malicious webpage that sends forged HTTP requests to configuration endpoints. If an authenticated a
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the web management interface of the U-SPEED N300 Rounter V1.0.0. The device does not implement CSRF protection mechanisms such as anti-CSRF tokens or strict Origin/Referer validation for administrative API endpoints. An attacker can craft a malicious webpage that sends forged HTTP requests to configuration endpoints. If an authenticated a
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the web management interface of the Dbit N300 T1 Pro wireless router V1.0.0. The router fails to implement proper CSRF protection mechanisms such as anti-CSRF tokens or strict Origin/Referer validation for administrative API endpoints. An attacker can craft a malicious webpage that sends forged HTTP requests to configuration endpoints suc
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
## Summary Several administrative operations in Admidio's preferences module (database backup, test email, htaccess generation) fire via GET requests with no CSRF token validation. Because `SameSite=Lax` cookies travel with top-level GET navigations, an attacker forces an authenticated admin to trigger these actions from a malicious page. ## Details In `modules/preferences.php`, the `backup`, `
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
VideoFlow Digital Video Protection DVP 2.10 contains an authenticated remote code execution vulnerability that allows authenticated attackers to execute arbitrary system commands by exploiting a cross-site request forgery flaw in the web management interface. Attackers with valid credentials can leverage the CSRF vulnerability to inject and execute system commands through the Tools > System > Shel
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Merge PACS 7.0 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to perform unauthorized actions by crafting malicious HTML forms targeting the merge-viewer endpoint. Attackers can submit POST requests to /servlet/actions/merge-viewer/summary with login credentials to hijack user sessions and gain unauthorized access to the PACS system.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Dmitry V. (CEO of "UKR Solution") Barcode Scanner with Inventory & Order Manager barcode-scanner-lite-pos-to-manage-products-inventory-and-orders allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Barcode Scanner with Inventory & Order Manager: from n/a through <= 1.11.0.
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Dmitry V. (CEO of "UKR Solution") Barcode Scanner with Inventory & Order Manager barcode-scanner-lite-pos-to-manage-products-inventory-and-orders allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Barcode Scanner with Inventory & Order Manager: from n/a through <= 1.11.0.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
A vulnerability has been found in Koillection up to 1.6.18. Affected is an unknown function of the file assets/controllers/csrf_protection_controller.js. Such manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery. The attack can be executed remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. Upgrading to version 1.7.0 is able to address this issue. The name of the patch is 9ab8562d3
💡 风险点: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
Cross Site Request Forgery vulnerability in diskoverdata diskover-community v.2.3.5. and before allows a remote attacker to escalate privileges and obtain sensitive information via the public/settings_process.php
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估
A security vulnerability has been detected in code-projects Invoice System in Laravel 1.0. This affects an unknown function. Such manipulation leads to cross-site request forgery. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used.
💡 影响/原因: 原文内容（由于配额限制，未进行深度 LLM 分析）
🎯 建议动作: 建议根据原文自行评估