The WOLF – WordPress Posts Bulk Editor and Manager Professional plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.8.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the wpbe_create_new_term, wpbe_update_tax_term, and wpbe_delete_tax_term functions. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to create, modify and delete taxonomy terms via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. Furthermore, the functions wpbe_save_options, wpbe_bulk_delete_posts_count, wpbe_bulk_delete_posts, and wpbe_save_meta are vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery allowing for plugin options update, post count deletion, post deletion and modification of post metadata via forged request.
Weakness
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.
Affected Software
| Name |
Vendor |
Start Version |
End Version |
| Wolf_-_wordpress_posts_bulk_editor_and_products_manager_professional |
Pluginus |
* |
1.0.8.1 (including) |
Potential Mitigations
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
- For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330]
- Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]
- Use the “double-submitted cookie” method as described by Felten and Zeller:
- When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user’s machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as a form value and also as a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form value and the cookie value are the same.
- Because of the same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult.
- This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled. [REF-331]
References