| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in Limny 2.0 allow remote attackers to (1) hijack the authentication of users or administrators for requests that change the email address or password via the user action to index.php, and (2) hijack the authentication of the administrator for requests that create a new user via the admin/modules/user/new action to limny/index.php. |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in default.asp in ASPCode CMS 1.5.8, 2.0.0 Build 103, and possibly other versions, allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of an administrator for requests that (1) delete users via the delete action in the ma2 parameter or (2) create administrators via the update action in the ma2 parameter. |
| Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in Zenoss 2.3.3, and other versions before 2.5, allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of an administrator for (1) requests that reset user passwords via zport/dmd/ZenUsers/admin, and (2) requests that change user commands, which allows for remote execution of system commands via zport/dmd/userCommands/. |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the Administrative Console in IBM WebSphere Application Server (WAS) 6.1 before 6.1.0.35 and 7.0 before 7.0.0.13 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims via unknown vectors. |
| Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in admin/configure.php in DFD Cart 1.198, 1.197, and earlier allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that (1) conduct cross-site scripting (XSS) attacks or (2) change unspecified settings. |
| Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in the Chaos Tool Suite (aka CTools) module 6.x before 6.x-1.4 for Drupal allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that (1) enable a page via a q=admin/build/pages/nojs/enable/ value or (2) disable a page via a q=admin/build/pages/nojs/disable/ value. |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in AlegroCart 1.1 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of the administrator for requests that reset the administrator password via a POST to admin/ with an update action. |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Mahara 1.2.x before 1.2.7 and 1.3.x before 1.3.4 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users for requests that delete blogs. |
| Ruby on Rails 2.1.x, 2.2.x, and 2.3.x before 2.3.11, and 3.x before 3.0.4, does not properly validate HTTP requests that contain an X-Requested-With header, which makes it easier for remote attackers to conduct cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks via forged (1) AJAX or (2) API requests that leverage "combinations of browser plugins and HTTP redirects," a related issue to CVE-2011-0696. |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in HP Power Manager (HPPM) 4.3.2 and earlier allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that create new administrative accounts. |
| Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in calendar.class.php in ApPHP Calendar (ApPHP CAL) allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims for requests that use the (1) category_name, (2) category_description, (3) event_name, or (4) event_description parameter. |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in admin/libs/ADMIN.php in BLOG:CMS 4.2.1.e, and possibly earlier, allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators. |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in HP Insight Control for Linux before 6.2 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims via unknown vectors. |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in HP Insight Control Performance Management before 6.2 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims via unknown vectors. |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in HP Insight Control Power Management before 6.2 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims via unknown vectors. |
| Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in FlexCMS 3.2.1 and earlier allow remote attackers to (1) hijack the authentication of users for requests that change account settings via a request to index.php/profile-edit-save or (2) hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that add a new page via a request to admin/pages-new-save. |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in HP Insight Control Virtual Machine Management before 6.2 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of unspecified victims via unknown vectors. |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in goform/admin/formWlEncrypt in Sitecom WLM-2501 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that change the router passphrase via the pskValue parameter. |
| Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in Sitecom WLM-2501 allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that modify settings for (1) Mac Filtering via admin/formFilter, (2) IP/Port Filtering via formFilter, (3) Port Forwarding via formPortFw, (4) Wireless Access Control via admin/formWlAc, (5) Wi-Fi Protected Setup via formWsc, (6) URL Blocking Filter via formURL, (7) Domain Blocking Filter via formDOMAINBLK, and (8) IP Address ACL Filter via admin/formACL in goform/, different vectors than CVE-2012-1921. |
| The wp_create_nonce function in wp-includes/pluggable.php in WordPress 3.3.1 and earlier associates a nonce with a user account instead of a user session, which might make it easier for remote attackers to conduct cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks on specific actions and objects by sniffing the network, as demonstrated by attacks against the wp-admin/admin-ajax.php and wp-admin/user-new.php scripts. NOTE: the vendor reportedly disputes the significance of this issue because wp_create_nonce operates as intended, even if it is arguably inconsistent with certain CSRF protection details advocated by external organizations |
