Stored cross-site scripting via forged settings request
Published Dec 13, 2021 · Updated Aug 3, 2024
Cross-site request forgery in Fatcat Apps Pixel Cat before 2.6.2 allows remote attackers to store script via a forged settings request. The settings handler accepts a forged POST without a CSRF token and stores the unsanitized google_product_category value for later rendering. Exploitation requires a logged-in administrator to visit attacker-controlled content, after which the stored script executes in the WordPress administrative context.
Summary
What happened
Cross-site request forgery in Fatcat Apps Pixel Cat before 2.6.2 allows remote attackers to store script via a forged settings request. The settings handler accepts a forged POST without a CSRF token and stores the unsanitized google_product_category value for later rendering. Exploitation requires a logged-in administrator to visit attacker-controlled content, after which the stored script executes in the WordPress administrative context.
The record
- CVE
- CVE-2021-24922
- Published
- Dec 13, 2021
- Updated
- Aug 3, 2024
- Vendor
- Fatcat Apps
- Product
- Pixel Cat – Conversion Pixel Manager
- Classifications
- CWE-352, T1189
- Attack vector
- network
- Privileges
- unauthenticated
Timeline
How it unfolded
- Dec 13, 2021CVE publishedPublication date reported by the CVE source.
- Aug 3, 2024Record updatedLatest update available in the CVE record.
Exploitability
Present is not the same as exploitable
Compare your product and version with the public record. A matching version still requires validation against your environment.
Is a vulnerable build present?
Compare these published version ranges with your installed build and any vendor patches.
- Affected versionversion=2.6.2 <2.6.2
What conditions does exploitation require?
What is affected?
Published CVSS scores
CVSS describes severity. EPSS estimates exploitation probability.
Attacks
What attackers are doing with it
Daily unique IPs observed by Shadowserver honeypots for known exploited vulnerabilities (KEVs). Missing observations do not establish an absence of attacks.
Public exploit references
- WPScan forged settings request proof of conceptproof of concept · demonstrated
Labels summarize the accepted research assessment. They do not indicate a test against your environment.
Technologies
Your stack
See the directory against your own environment.
Your stack
Check the software in your environment
Book a demo to see how Hinoki identifies affected software and validates exploitability in your environment.
Book a demo