Export limit exceeded: 364917 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (10328 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2023-1604 | 2 Kaizencoders, Wordpress | 2 Short Url, Wordpress | 2026-04-15 | 4.7 Medium |
| The Short URL plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 1.6.8. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the configuration_page function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to add and import redirects, including comments containing cross-site scripting as detailed in CVE-2023-1602, granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. | ||||
| CVE-2024-6662 | 1 Jan Syski | 1 Megabip | 2026-04-15 | N/A |
| Websites managed by MegaBIP in versions below 5.15 are vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) as the form available under "/edytor/index.php?id=7,7,0" lacks protection mechanisms. A user could be tricked into visiting a malicious website, which would send POST request to this endpoint. If the victim is a logged in administrator, this could lead to creation of new accounts and granting of administrative permissions. | ||||
| CVE-2024-12220 | 2026-04-15 | 6.1 Medium | ||
| The SMS for WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.8.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on a function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject malicious web scripts via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. | ||||
| CVE-2021-47722 | 1 Zucchetti | 1 Axess Cloki Access Control | 2026-04-15 | 3.5 Low |
| Zucchetti Axess CLOKI Access Control 1.64 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to manipulate access control settings without user interaction. Attackers can craft malicious web pages with hidden forms to disable or modify access control parameters by tricking authenticated users into loading the page. | ||||
| CVE-2025-24289 | 2026-04-15 | N/A | ||
| A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) leading to Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the UCRM Client Signup Plugin (v1.3.4 and earlier) could allow privilege escalation if an Administrator is tricked into visiting a crafted malicious page. The plugin is disabled by default. | ||||
| CVE-2025-49341 | 1 Wordpress | 1 Wordpress | 2026-04-15 | 7.1 High |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Alex Furr PDF Creator Lite pdf-creator-lite allows Stored XSS.This issue affects PDF Creator Lite: from n/a through <= 1.2. | ||||
| CVE-2024-12541 | 1 Wordpress | 1 Wordpress | 2026-04-15 | 5.4 Medium |
| The Chative Live chat and Chatbot 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 add_chative_widget_action() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to change the channel ID or organization ID via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. This could lead to redirecting the live chat widget to an attacker-controlled channel. | ||||
| CVE-2024-34755 | 2026-04-15 | 4.3 Medium | ||
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in CRM Perks Integration for Contact Form 7 and Salesforce.This issue affects Integration for Contact Form 7 and Salesforce: from n/a through 1.3.9. | ||||
| CVE-2024-12557 | 1 Wordpress | 1 Wordpress | 2026-04-15 | 6.1 Medium |
| The Transporters.io 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 nonce validation on a function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject malicious web scripts via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. | ||||
| CVE-2025-62346 | 1 Hcltech | 1 Glovius Cloud | 2026-04-15 | 6.8 Medium |
| A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability was identified in HCL Glovius Cloud. An attacker can force a user's web browser to execute an unwanted, malicious action on a trusted site where the user is authenticated, specifically on one endpoint. | ||||
| CVE-2024-27901 | 2026-04-15 | 7.2 High | ||
| SAP Asset Accounting could allow a high privileged attacker to exploit insufficient validation of path information provided by the users and pass it through to the file API's. Thus, causing a considerable impact on confidentiality, integrity and availability of the application. | ||||
| CVE-2024-22438 | 2026-04-15 | 3.5 Low | ||
| A potential security vulnerability has been identified in Hewlett Packard Enterprise OfficeConnect 1820 Network switches. The vulnerability could be remotely exploited to allow execution of malicious code. | ||||
| CVE-2025-62871 | 1 Wordpress | 1 Wordpress | 2026-04-15 | 4.3 Medium |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Alex Prokopenko / JustCoded Just TinyMCE Custom Styles just-tinymce-styles allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Just TinyMCE Custom Styles: from n/a through <= 1.2.1. | ||||
| CVE-2024-12646 | 2026-04-15 | 8.1 High | ||
| The topm-client from Chunghwa Telecom has an Arbitrary File Delete vulnerability. The application sets up a simple local web server and provides APIs for communication with the target website. Due to the lack of CSRF protection in the APIs, unauthenticated remote attackers could use these APIs through phishing. Additionally, one of the APIs contains an Absolute Path Traversal vulnerability, allowing attackers to delete arbitrary files on the user's system. | ||||
| CVE-2021-47800 | 1 B2evolution | 2 B2evolution, B2evolution Cms | 2026-04-15 | 5.3 Medium |
| b2evolution 7.2.2 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to modify admin account details without authentication. Attackers can craft a malicious HTML form to submit unauthorized changes to user profiles by tricking victims into loading a specially crafted webpage. | ||||
| CVE-2024-0067 | 2026-04-15 | 4.3 Medium | ||
| Marinus Pfund, member of the AXIS OS Bug Bounty Program, has found the VAPIX API ledlimit.cgi was vulnerable for path traversal attacks allowing to list folder/file names on the local file system of the Axis device. Axis has released patched AXIS OS versions for the highlighted flaw. Please refer to the Axis security advisory for more information and solution. | ||||
| CVE-2024-45504 | 2026-04-15 | 6.5 Medium | ||
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in multiple Alps System Integration products and the OEM products allow a remote unauthenticated attacker to hijack the authentication of the user and to perform unintended operations if the user views a malicious page while logged in. | ||||
| CVE-2023-44478 | 1 Wordpress | 1 Wordpress | 2026-04-15 | 7.1 High |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in WP Hive Events Rich Snippets for Google allows Exploitation of Trusted Credentials.This issue affects Events Rich Snippets for Google: from n/a through 1.8. | ||||
| CVE-2024-12555 | 1 Wordpress | 1 Wordpress | 2026-04-15 | 6.1 Medium |
| The SIP Calculator plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0. This is due to missing nonce validation on a function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject malicious web scripts via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. | ||||
| CVE-2024-32883 | 2026-04-15 | 7.7 High | ||
| MCUboot is a secure bootloader for 32-bits microcontrollers. MCUboot uses a TLV (tag-length-value) structure to represent the meta data associated with an image. The TLVs themselves are divided into two sections, a protected and an unprotected section. The protected TLV entries are included as part of the image signature to avoid tampering. However, the code does not distinguish which TLV entries should be protected or not, so it is possible for an attacker to add unprotected TLV entries that should be protected. Currently, the primary protected TLV entries should be the dependency indication, and the boot record. An injected dependency value would primarily result in an otherwise acceptable image being rejected. A boot record injection could allow fields in a later attestation record to include data not intended, which could cause an image to appear to have properties that it should not have. As a workaround, disable the boot record functionality. | ||||