Total
9187 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v3.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2025-9617 | 2 Evidentlycube, Wordpress | 2 Publish Approval Plugin, Wordpress | 2026-04-20 | 5.3 Medium |
| The Publish approval 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 publish_save_option function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify plugin settings via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. | ||||
| CVE-2025-9632 | 2 Vinzzb, Wordpress | 2 Phplist Subber, Wordpress | 2026-04-20 | 4.3 Medium |
| The PhpList Subber 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 bulk_action_handler function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to trigger bulk synchronization of subscription forms via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. | ||||
| CVE-2025-9881 | 1 Wordpress | 1 Wordpress | 2026-04-20 | 6.1 Medium |
| The Ultimate Blogroll plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.5.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on a function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update settings and 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-2025-9887 | 1 Wordpress | 1 Wordpress | 2026-04-20 | 4.3 Medium |
| The Custom Login And Signup Widget plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation in the /frndzk_adminclsw.php file. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to change the email and username settings via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. | ||||
| CVE-2025-9899 | 2 Trustreviews, Wordpress | 2 Trust Reviews Plugin, Wordpress | 2026-04-20 | 6.1 Medium |
| The Trust Reviews plugin for Google, Tripadvisor, Yelp, Airbnb and other platforms plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the feed_save function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to create or modify feed entries via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. | ||||
| CVE-2025-9944 | 1 Wordpress | 1 Wordpress | 2026-04-20 | 4.3 Medium |
| The Professional Contact Form plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the watch_for_contact_form_submit function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to trigger test email sending via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. | ||||
| CVE-2025-9893 | 1 Wordpress | 1 Wordpress | 2026-04-20 | 4.3 Medium |
| The VM Menu Reorder plugin plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the vm_set_to_default function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to reset all menu reordering settings via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. | ||||
| CVE-2025-9948 | 1 Wordpress | 1 Wordpress | 2026-04-20 | 4.3 Medium |
| The Chat by Chatwee plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.1.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the admin settings page. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify plugin settings via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. | ||||
| CVE-2025-7052 | 2 Latepoint, Wordpress | 2 Latepoint, Wordpress | 2026-04-20 | 8.8 High |
| The LatePoint plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 5.1.94. This is due to missing nonce validation on the change_password() function of its customer_cabinet__change_password AJAX route. The plugin hooks this endpoint via wp_ajax and wp_ajax_nopriv but does not verify a nonce or user capability before resetting the user’s password. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers who trick a logged-in customer (or, with “WP users as customers” enabled, an administrator) into visiting a malicious link to take over their account. | ||||
| CVE-2025-9889 | 1 Wordpress | 1 Wordpress | 2026-04-20 | 4.3 Medium |
| The ContentMX Content Publisher plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.6. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the cmx_activate_connection function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to bind their own ContentMX connection via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. | ||||
| CVE-2025-9630 | 1 Wordpress | 1 Wordpress | 2026-04-20 | 4.3 Medium |
| The WP SinoType plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the sinotype_config function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify typography settings via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. | ||||
| CVE-2025-9895 | 1 Wordpress | 1 Wordpress | 2026-04-20 | 4.3 Medium |
| The Notification Bar plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the 'subscriber-list-empty.php' file. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to empty the subscriber list via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. | ||||
| CVE-2025-8606 | 2 Westerndeal, Wordpress | 2 Gsheetconnector For Gravity Forms, Wordpress | 2026-04-20 | 2.4 Low |
| The GSheetConnector For Gravity Forms plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions less than, or equal to, 1.3.23. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the activate_plugin and deactivate_plugin functions. This makes it possible for attackers to trick authenticated administrators into activating or deactivating specified plugins via a forged request, such as clicking on a malicious link or visiting a compromised page. | ||||
| CVE-2025-8383 | 2 Averta, Wordpress | 2 Slider And Popup Builder By Depicter, Wordpress | 2026-04-20 | 4.3 Medium |
| The Depicter plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions less than, or equal to, 4.0.4. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the depicter-document-rules-store function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify document rules via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. | ||||
| CVE-2026-40581 | 1 Churchcrm | 1 Churchcrm | 2026-04-20 | 8.1 High |
| ChurchCRM is an open-source church management system. In versions prior to 7.2.0, the family record deletion endpoint (SelectDelete.php) performs permanent, irreversible deletion of family records and all associated data via a plain GET request with no CSRF token validation. An attacker can craft a malicious page that, when visited by an authenticated administrator, silently triggers deletion of targeted family records including associated notes, pledges, persons, and property data without any user interaction. This issue has been fixed in version 7.2.0. | ||||
| CVE-2025-8669 | 1 Wordpress | 1 Wordpress | 2026-04-20 | 4.3 Medium |
| The Customify theme for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in version 0.4.11. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the reset_customize_section function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to reset theme customization settings via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. | ||||
| CVE-2026-40458 | 1 Pac4j | 1 Pac4j | 2026-04-20 | 6.5 Medium |
| PAC4J is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF). A malicious attacker can craft a specially designed website which, when visited by a user, will automatically submit a forged cross-site request with a token whose hash collides with the victim's legitimate CSRF token. Importantly, the attacker does not need to know the victim’s CSRF token or its hash prior to the attack. Collisions in the deterministic String.hashCode() function can be computed directly, reducing the effective token's security space to 32 bits. This bypasses CSRF protection, allowing profile updates, password changes, account linking, and any other state-changing operations to be performed without the victim's consent. This issue was fixed in PAC4J versions 5.7.10 and 6.4.1 | ||||
| CVE-2026-23950 | 1 Isaacs | 1 Tar | 2026-04-18 | 8.8 High |
| node-tar,a Tar for Node.js, has a race condition vulnerability in versions up to and including 7.5.3. This is due to an incomplete handling of Unicode path collisions in the `path-reservations` system. On case-insensitive or normalization-insensitive filesystems (such as macOS APFS, In which it has been tested), the library fails to lock colliding paths (e.g., `ß` and `ss`), allowing them to be processed in parallel. This bypasses the library's internal concurrency safeguards and permits Symlink Poisoning attacks via race conditions. The library uses a `PathReservations` system to ensure that metadata checks and file operations for the same path are serialized. This prevents race conditions where one entry might clobber another concurrently. This is a Race Condition which enables Arbitrary File Overwrite. This vulnerability affects users and systems using node-tar on macOS (APFS/HFS+). Because of using `NFD` Unicode normalization (in which `ß` and `ss` are different), conflicting paths do not have their order properly preserved under filesystems that ignore Unicode normalization (e.g., APFS (in which `ß` causes an inode collision with `ss`)). This enables an attacker to circumvent internal parallelization locks (`PathReservations`) using conflicting filenames within a malicious tar archive. The patch in version 7.5.4 updates `path-reservations.js` to use a normalization form that matches the target filesystem's behavior (e.g., `NFKD`), followed by first `toLocaleLowerCase('en')` and then `toLocaleUpperCase('en')`. As a workaround, users who cannot upgrade promptly, and who are programmatically using `node-tar` to extract arbitrary tarball data should filter out all `SymbolicLink` entries (as npm does) to defend against arbitrary file writes via this file system entry name collision issue. | ||||
| CVE-2026-24007 | 1 Enalean | 1 Tuleap | 2026-04-18 | 4.6 Medium |
| Tuleap is an Open Source Suite for management of software development and collaboration. Tuleap is missing CSRF protection in the Overview inconsistent items. An attacker could use this vulnerability to trick victims into repairing inconsistent items (creating artifact links from the release). This vulnerability is fixed in Tuleap Community Edition 17.0.99.1768924735 and Tuleap Enterprise Edition 17.2-5, 17.1-6, and 17.0-9. | ||||
| CVE-2026-24434 | 1 Tenda | 2 Ac7, Ac7 Firmware | 2026-04-18 | 6.5 Medium |
| Shenzhen Tenda AC7 firmware version V03.03.03.01_cn and prior does not implement CSRF protections for administrative functions in the web management interface. The interface does not enforce anti-CSRF tokens or robust origin validation, which can allow an attacker to induce a logged-in administrator to perform unintended state-changing requests and modify router settings. | ||||