CWE-352 is Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF). The flaw arises when the web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor. The database currently holds 570 vulnerabilities mapped to CWE-352 and 1 of them are in the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.
Analyzing data...
The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
| Impact | Scope | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Gain Privileges or Assume Identity, Bypass Protection Mechanism, Read Application Data, Modify Application Data, DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart | Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability, Non-Repudiation, Access Control | The consequences will vary depending on the nature of the functionality that is vulnerable to CSRF. An attacker could trick a client into making an unintentional request to the web server via a URL, image load, XMLHttpRequest, etc., which would then be treated as an authentic request from the client - effectively performing any operations as the victim, leading to an exposure of data, unintended code execution, etc. If the victim is an administrator or privileged user, the consequences may include obtaining complete control over the web application - deleting or stealing data, uninstalling the product, or using it to launch other attacks against all of the product's users. Because the attacker has the identity of the victim, the scope of CSRF is limited only by the victim's privileges. |
| Method | Approach | Effectiveness |
|---|---|---|
| Manual Analysis | This weakness can be detected using tools and techniques that require manual (human) analysis, such as penetration testing, threat modeling, and interactive tools that allow the tester to record and modify an active session. Specifically, manual analysis can be useful for finding this weakness, and for minimizing false positives assuming an understanding of business logic. However, it might not achieve desired code coverage within limited time constraints. For black-box analysis, if credentials are not known for privileged accounts, then the most security-critical portions of the application may not receive sufficient attention. Consider using OWASP CSRFTester to identify potential issues and aid in manual analysis.These may be more effective than strictly automated techniques. This is especially the case with weaknesses that are related to design and business rules. | High |
| Automated Static Analysis | CSRF is currently difficult to detect reliably using automated techniques. This is because each application has its own implicit security policy that dictates which requests can be influenced by an outsider and automatically performed on behalf of a user, versus which requests require strong confidence that the user intends to make the request. For example, a keyword search of the public portion of a web site is typically expected to be encoded within a link that can be launched automatically when the user clicks on the link. | Limited |
| Automated Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode | According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Bytecode Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis Binary Weakness Analysis - including disassembler + source code weakness analysis | SOAR Partial |
| Manual Static Analysis - Binary or Bytecode | According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Binary / Bytecode disassembler - then use manual analysis for vulnerabilities & anomalies | SOAR Partial |
| Dynamic Analysis with Automated Results Interpretation | According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Highly cost effective: ``` Web Application Scanner | High |
| Dynamic Analysis with Manual Results Interpretation | According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Highly cost effective: ``` Fuzz Tester Framework-based Fuzzer | High |
| Manual Static Analysis - Source Code | According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Focused Manual Spotcheck - Focused manual analysis of source Manual Source Code Review (not inspections) | SOAR Partial |
| Automated Static Analysis - Source Code | According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Source code Weakness Analyzer Context-configured Source Code Weakness Analyzer | SOAR Partial |
| Architecture or Design Review | According to SOAR [REF-1479], the following detection techniques may be useful: ``` Cost effective for partial coverage: ``` Inspection (IEEE 1028 standard) (can apply to requirements, design, source code, etc.) Formal Methods / Correct-By-Construction | SOAR Partial |
Below are representative vulnerabilities related to this CWE, prioritized by severity.
CWE™ Program, operated by The MITRE Corporation. Copyright © 2006–2026, The MITRE Corporation. The MITRE Corporation hereby grants you a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use CWE for research, development, and commercial purposes. CWE Terms of Use.
CyStack VulnScan continuously discovers assets, validates vulnerabilities, and helps security teams prioritize remediation across the organization.
Review CyStack's security rating and practical recommendations for websites and edge assets.
Explore cybersecurity research from our team of security specialists.
Browse practical cybersecurity knowledge across CyStack's articles and guides.
en
