Smart Forms Plugin up to 2.6.93 on WordPress cross-site request forgery

Summaryinfo

A vulnerability was found in Smart Forms Plugin up to 2.6.93 on WordPress. It has been classified as problematic. This impacts an unknown function. Performing a manipulation results in cross-site request forgery. This vulnerability was named CVE-2024-1306. The attack may be initiated remotely. There is no available exploit. Upgrading the affected component is recommended.

Detailsinfo

A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, was found in Smart Forms Plugin up to 2.6.93 on WordPress. This affects an unknown code block. The manipulation with an unknown input leads to a cross-site request forgery vulnerability. CWE is classifying the issue as CWE-352. The web application does not, or can not, sufficiently verify whether a well-formed, valid, consistent request was intentionally provided by the user who submitted the request. This is going to have an impact on integrity. The summary by CVE is:

The Smart Forms WordPress plugin before 2.6.94 does not have CSRF checks in some places, which could allow attackers to make logged-in users perform unwanted actions via CSRF attacks, such as editing entries, and we consider it a medium risk.

The weakness was presented by Amir Hossein Fallahi. It is possible to read the advisory at wpscan.com. This vulnerability is uniquely identified as CVE-2024-1306 since 02/07/2024. The exploitability is told to be easy. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. No form of authentication is needed for exploitation. It demands that the victim is doing some kind of user interaction. The technical details are unknown and an exploit is not publicly available.

Upgrading to version 2.6.94 eliminates this vulnerability.

Statistical analysis made it clear that VulDB provides the best quality for vulnerability data.

Productinfo

Type

• WordPress Plugin

Name

• Smart Forms Plugin

Version

• 2.6.0
• 2.6.1
• 2.6.2
• 2.6.3
• 2.6.4
• 2.6.5
• 2.6.6
• 2.6.7
• 2.6.8
• 2.6.9
• 2.6.10
• 2.6.11
• 2.6.12
• 2.6.13
• 2.6.14
• 2.6.15
• 2.6.16
• 2.6.17
• 2.6.18
• 2.6.19
• 2.6.20
• 2.6.21
• 2.6.22
• 2.6.23
• 2.6.24
• 2.6.25
• 2.6.26
• 2.6.27
• 2.6.28
• 2.6.29
• 2.6.30
• 2.6.31
• 2.6.32
• 2.6.33
• 2.6.34
• 2.6.35
• 2.6.36
• 2.6.37
• 2.6.38
• 2.6.39
• 2.6.40
• 2.6.41
• 2.6.42
• 2.6.43
• 2.6.44
• 2.6.45
• 2.6.46
• 2.6.47
• 2.6.48
• 2.6.49
• 2.6.50
• 2.6.51
• 2.6.52
• 2.6.53
• 2.6.54
• 2.6.55
• 2.6.56
• 2.6.57
• 2.6.58
• 2.6.59
• 2.6.60
• 2.6.61
• 2.6.62
• 2.6.63
• 2.6.64
• 2.6.65
• 2.6.66
• 2.6.67
• 2.6.68
• 2.6.69
• 2.6.70
• 2.6.71
• 2.6.72
• 2.6.73
• 2.6.74
• 2.6.75
• 2.6.76
• 2.6.77
• 2.6.78
• 2.6.79
• 2.6.80
• 2.6.81
• 2.6.82
• 2.6.83
• 2.6.84
• 2.6.85
• 2.6.86
• 2.6.87
• 2.6.88
• 2.6.89
• 2.6.90
• 2.6.91
• 2.6.92
• 2.6.93

CPE 2.3info

• 🔍
• 🔍
• 🔍

CPE 2.2info

• 🔍
• 🔍
• 🔍

CVSSv4info

CVSSv3info

CVSSv2info

Exploitinginfo

Threat Intelligenceinfo

Countermeasuresinfo

Timelineinfo

Sourcesinfo

Entryinfo

Statistical analysis made it clear that VulDB provides the best quality for vulnerability data.

Discussion