Export limit exceeded: 11078 CVEs match your query. Please refine your search to export 10,000 CVEs or fewer.
Search
Search Results (11078 CVEs found)
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2017-8874 | 1 Acquia | 1 Mautic | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in Mautic 1.4.1 allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of users for requests that (1) delete email campaigns or (2) delete contacts. | ||||
| CVE-2017-15729 | 1 Phpmyfaq | 1 Phpmyfaq | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| In phpMyFAQ before 2.9.9, there is Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) for adding a glossary. | ||||
| CVE-2017-15730 | 1 Phpmyfaq | 1 Phpmyfaq | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| In phpMyFAQ before 2.9.9, there is Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in admin/stat.ratings.php. | ||||
| CVE-2017-15731 | 1 Phpmyfaq | 1 Phpmyfaq | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| In phpMyFAQ before 2.9.9, there is Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in admin/stat.adminlog.php. | ||||
| CVE-2017-15732 | 1 Phpmyfaq | 1 Phpmyfaq | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| In phpMyFAQ before 2.9.9, there is Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in admin/news.php. | ||||
| CVE-2017-15733 | 1 Phpmyfaq | 1 Phpmyfaq | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| In phpMyFAQ before 2.9.9, there is Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in admin/ajax.attachment.php and admin/att.main.php. | ||||
| CVE-2017-15734 | 1 Phpmyfaq | 1 Phpmyfaq | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| In phpMyFAQ before 2.9.9, there is Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in admin/stat.main.php. | ||||
| CVE-2017-15735 | 1 Phpmyfaq | 1 Phpmyfaq | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| In phpMyFAQ before 2.9.9, there is Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) for modifying a glossary. | ||||
| CVE-2017-15645 | 1 Webmin | 1 Webmin | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| CSRF exists in Webmin 1.850. By sending a GET request to at/create_job.cgi containing dir=/&cmd= in the URI, an attacker to execute arbitrary commands. | ||||
| CVE-2017-15808 | 1 Phpmyfaq | 1 Phpmyfaq | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| In phpMyFaq before 2.9.9, there is CSRF in admin/ajax.config.php. | ||||
| CVE-2017-15994 | 1 Samba | 1 Rsync | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| rsync 3.1.3-development before 2017-10-24 mishandles archaic checksums, which makes it easier for remote attackers to bypass intended access restrictions. NOTE: the rsync development branch has significant use beyond the rsync developers, e.g., the code has been copied for use in various GitHub projects. | ||||
| CVE-2017-6086 | 1 Vimbadmin | 1 Vimbadmin | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in the addAction and purgeAction functions in ViMbAdmin 3.0.15 allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of logged administrators to (1) add an administrator user via a crafted POST request to <vimbadmin directory>/application/controllers/DomainController.php, (2) remove an administrator user via a crafted GET request to <vimbadmin directory>/application/controllers/DomainController.php, (3) change an administrator password via a crafted POST request to <vimbadmin directory>/application/controllers/DomainController.php, (4) add a mailbox via a crafted POST request to <vimbadmin directory>/application/controllers/MailboxController.php, (5) delete a mailbox via a crafted POST request to <vimbadmin directory>/application/controllers/MailboxController.php, (6) archive a mailbox address via a crafted GET request to <vimbadmin directory>/application/controllers/ArchiveController.php, (7) add an alias address via a crafted POST request to <vimbadmin directory>/application/controllers/AliasController.php, or (8) remove an alias address via a crafted GET request to <vimbadmin directory>/application/controllers/AliasController.php. | ||||
| CVE-2017-15516 | 1 Netapp | 1 Snapcenter Server | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| NetApp SnapCenter Server versions 1.1 through 2.x are susceptible to a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability which could be used to cause an unintended authenticated action in the user interface. | ||||
| CVE-2017-1442 | 1 Ibm | 1 Emptoris Services Procurement | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| IBM Emptoris Services Procurement 10.0.0.5 is vulnerable to cross-site request forgery which could allow an attacker to execute malicious and unauthorized actions transmitted from a user that the website trusts. IBM X-Force ID: 128107. | ||||
| CVE-2017-14362 | 1 Microfocus | 1 Project And Portfolio Management | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| Cross-Site Request Forgery vulnerability in Micro Focus Project and Portfolio Management Center, version 9.32. This vulnerability could be exploited to allow a Cross-Site Forgery attack. | ||||
| CVE-2017-14267 | 1 Ee | 2 4gee Wifi Mbb, 4gee Wifi Mbb Firmware | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| EE 4GEE WiFi MBB (before EE60_00_05.00_31) devices have CSRF, related to goform/AddNewProfile, goform/setWanDisconnect, goform/setSMSAutoRedirectSetting, goform/setReset, and goform/uploadBackupSettings. | ||||
| CVE-2017-14092 | 1 Trendmicro | 1 Scanmail | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| The absence of Anti-CSRF tokens in Trend Micro ScanMail for Exchange 12.0 web interface forms could allow an attacker to submit authenticated requests when an authenticated user browses an attacker-controlled domain. | ||||
| CVE-2017-14048 | 1 Blackcat-cms | 1 Blackcat Cms | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| BlackCat CMS 1.2 allows remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary PHP code into info.php via a crafted new_modulename parameter to backend/addons/ajax_create.php. NOTE: this can be exploited via CSRF. | ||||
| CVE-2017-14011 | 1 Prominent | 2 Multiflex M10a Controller, Multiflex M10a Controller Firmware | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| A Cross-Site Request Forgery issue was discovered in ProMinent MultiFLEX M10a Controller web interface. The application does not sufficiently verify requests, making it susceptible to cross-site request forgery. This may allow an attacker to execute unauthorized code, resulting in changes to the configuration of the device. | ||||
| CVE-2017-12651 | 1 Loginizer | 1 Loginizer | 2025-04-20 | N/A |
| Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) exists in the Blacklist and Whitelist IP Wizard in init.php in the Loginizer plugin before 1.3.6 for WordPress because the HTTP Referer header is not checked. | ||||