CVE-2024-41597: processwire · Cross-Site Request Forgery
Affects processwireSource CVE Database V5
Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.2 Medium.
Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:47 UTC
- EPSS
- 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 11% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:NExploitation evidence
Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 19 Jul 2024
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors
A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.
What to do
Affected software
| Product | Affected | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
Packagistprocesswire/processwirepkg:composer/processwire/processwireOther threats | Affected
| Fixed in– |
Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.
AI-suggested
Given the vendor's position that the behavior is intentional and the comments are moderated, no immediate action may be required. Users should review their comment moderation policies and consider additional CSRF protections if anonymous comment insertion is undesirable in their deployment.
Description
Cross Site Request Forgery vulnerability in ProcessWire v.3.0.229 allows a remote attacker to insert a comment. NOTE: this is disputed by the Supplier because the product intentionally accepts anonymous, unauthenticated comments and thus there are fewer situations in which CSRF would be a useful attack technique. Also, the submitted comments are, by default, held for moderator review.