| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Path Traversal: '.../...//' vulnerability in AA-Team Pro Bulk Watermark Plugin for WordPress allows Path Traversal.This issue affects Pro Bulk Watermark Plugin for WordPress: from n/a through 2.0. |
| Path Traversal vulnerability in WF Steuerungstechnik GmbH airleader MASTER allows Retrieve Embedded Sensitive Data.This issue affects airleader MASTER: 3.0046. |
| Multi-DNC – CWE-35: Path Traversal: '.../...//' |
| The WP Lead Plus X plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 0.99. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on several functions. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to perform administrative actions, such as adding pages to the site and/or replacing site content with malicious JavaScript via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. |
| Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in easy-popup-show all versions allows a remote unauthenticated attacker to hijack the authentication of the administrator and to perform unintended operations if the administrator views a malicious page while logged in. |
| SmartHouse Webapp 6.5.33 contains multiple cross-site request forgery and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities that allow attackers to perform unauthorized actions. Attackers can exploit these vulnerabilities by tricking logged-in users into visiting malicious websites or injecting malicious scripts into various application parameters. |
| Improperly implemented security check for standard in the DDRIO configuration for some Intel(R) Xeon(R) 6 Processors when using Intel(R) SGX or Intel(R) TDX may allow a privileged user to potentially enable escalation of privilege via local access. |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Plechev Andrey WP-Recall.This issue affects WP-Recall: from n/a through 16.26.6. |
| The Peter’s Custom Anti-Spam plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.2.3. This is due to missing nonce validation on the cas_register_post() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to blacklist emails via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. |
| SOCA Access Control System 180612 contains a cross-site request forgery vulnerability that allows attackers to perform administrative actions without proper request validation. Attackers can craft malicious web pages that submit forged requests to create admin accounts by tricking logged-in users into visiting a malicious site. |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Martin Gibson WP GoToWebinar allows Cross-Site Scripting (XSS).This issue affects WP GoToWebinar: from n/a through 15.7. |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in FanBridge FanBridge signup fanbridge-signup allows Stored XSS.This issue affects FanBridge signup: from n/a through <= 0.6. |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Uploadcare Uploadcare File Uploader and Adaptive Delivery (beta) uploadcare.This issue affects Uploadcare File Uploader and Adaptive Delivery (beta): from n/a through 3.0.11. |
| The Schema App Structured Data 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 or incorrect nonce validation on the MarkUpdate function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update and delete post metadata via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. |
| 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. |
| Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in savignano S/Notify before 4.0.2 for Confluence allows attackers to manipulate a user's S/MIME certificate of PGP key via malicious link or email. |
| A security vulnerability in HPE IceWall Agent products could be exploited remotely to cause a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in the login flow. |
| 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. |
| Opal is OBiBa’s core database application for biobanks or epidemiological studies. Prior to version 5.1.1, the protections against cross-site request forgery (CSRF) were insufficient application-wide. The referrer header is checked, and if it is invalid, the server returns 403. However, the referrer header can be dropped from CSRF requests using `<meta name="referrer" content="never">`, effectively bypassing this protection. Version 5.1.1 contains a patch for the issue. |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in integrationshotelrunner HotelRunner Booking Widget hotelrunner allows Stored XSS.This issue affects HotelRunner Booking Widget: from n/a through <= 1.6. |
