| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Hush Line is an open-source whistleblower management system. Starting in version 0.1.0 and prior to version 0.3.5, the productions server appeared to have been misconfigured and missed providing any content security policy or security headers. This could result in bypassing of cross-site scripting filters. Version 0.3.5 fixed the issue. |
| Cross-Frame Scripting (XFS) vulnerability in BoomCMS v9.1.4 from UXB London. XFS is a web attack technique that exploits specific browser bugs to spy on users via JavaScript. This type of attack is based on social engineering and depends entirely on the browser chosen by the user, so it is perceived as a minor threat to web application security. This vulnerability only works in older browsers. |
| Affected is an unknown function of the component Login Page. The manipulation leads to improper restriction of rendered ui layers. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. |
| PLANKA 2.0.0 lacks X-Frame-Options and CSP frame-ancestors headers, allowing the application to be embedded within malicious iframes. While this does not lead to unintended modification of projects or tasks, it exposes users to Phishing attacks. Attackers can frame the legitimate Planka application on a malicious site to establish false trust (UI Redressing), potentially tricking users into entering sensitive information or credentials into overlaid fake forms. NOTE: this is disputed by the Supplier because "PLANKA uses SameSite=Strict cookies, preventing authentication in cross-origin contexts. No session can be established. No credential interception or unauthorized actions are possible. Browser Same-Origin Policy prevents the parent page from accessing iframe content. Clickjacking is not applicable on the login page. Any credential capture would require attacker-controlled input and user interaction equivalent to phishing. The security outcome depends entirely on the user's trust in the parent page. An attacker can achieve the same effect with a fully fake login page. Embedding the legitimate page adds no risk, as browsers do not show URL, certificate, or padlock indicators in cross-origin iframes." |
| Missing about:blank indicator in custom-sized new windows in Dia before 1.9.0 on macOS could allow an attacker to spoof a trusted domain in the window title and mislead users about the current site. |
| SAP Commerce (Backoffice) uses the deprecated X-FRAME-OPTIONS header to protect against clickjacking. While this protection remains effective now, it may not be the case in the future as browsers might discontinue support for this header in favor of the frame-ancestors CSP directive. Hence, clickjacking could become possible then, and lead to exposure and modification of sensitive information. |
| Malicious content from E-Mail can be used to perform a redressing attack. Users can be tricked to perform unintended actions or provide sensitive information to a third party which would enable further threats. Attribute values containing HTML fragments are now denied by the sanitization procedure. No publicly available exploits are known |
| This vulnerability allowed a site to enter fullscreen, after a user click, without a full-screen notification (toast) appearing. Without this notification, users could potentially be misled about what site they were on if a malicious site renders a fake UI (like a fake address bar.) |
| Improper Restriction of Rendered UI Layers or Frames vulnerability in Akinsoft LimonDesk allows iFrame Overlay, CAPEC - 103 - Clickjacking.This issue affects LimonDesk: from s1.02.14 before v1.02.17. |
| ArcSearch for iOS versions prior to 1.45.2 could display a different domain in the address bar than the content being shown after an iframe-triggered URI-scheme navigation, increasing spoofing risk. |
| The web application is vulnerable to a so-called ‘clickjacking’ attack. In this type of attack, the vulnerable page is inserted into a page controlled by the attacker in order to deceive the victim. This deception can range from making the victim click on a button to making them enter their login credentials in a form that, a priori, appears legitimate. |
| Clickjacking vulnerability in Clibo Manager v1.1.9.12 in the '/public/login' directory, a login panel. This vulnerability occurs due to the absence of an X-Frame-Options server-side header. An attacker could overlay a transparent iframe to perform click hijacking on victims. |
| Incorrect security UI in Permissions in Google Chrome on Windows prior to 147.0.7727.55 allowed a remote attacker to perform domain spoofing via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low) |
| Incorrect security UI in Omnibox in Google Chrome on Android prior to 147.0.7727.55 allowed a remote attacker to spoof the contents of the Omnibox (URL bar) via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low) |
| Policy bypass in Blink in Google Chrome prior to 147.0.7727.55 allowed a remote attacker to perform UI spoofing via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium) |
| Insufficient policy enforcement in browser UI in Google Chrome prior to 147.0.7727.55 allowed a remote attacker who had compromised the renderer process to perform UI spoofing via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium) |
| Incorrect security UI in Downloads in Google Chrome prior to 147.0.7727.55 allowed a remote attacker who convinced a user to engage in specific UI gestures to perform UI spoofing via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low) |
| The issue was addressed with improved UI handling. This issue is fixed in Safari 17.6, macOS Monterey 12.7.6, macOS Sonoma 14.6, macOS Ventura 13.6.8. Visiting a website that frames malicious content may lead to UI spoofing. |
| HCL Nomad server on Domino did not configure the frame-ancestors directive in the Content-Security-Policy header by default which could allow an attacker to obtain sensitive information via unspecified vectors. |
| The CGM CLININET application does not implement any mechanisms that prevent clickjacking attacks, neither HTTP security headers nor HTML-based frame‑busting protections were detected. As a result, an attacker can embed the application inside a maliciously crafted IFRAME and trick users into performing unintended actions, including potentially bypassing CSRF/XSRF defenses. |
