VulnerabilityPublished 1 Aug 2024Updated 15 Oct 2025

CVE-2024-6040: parisneo/lollms · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Affects parisneo/lollmsSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.4 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.0 base score

4.4Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 5% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
Availability: Low

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 1 Aug 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.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubparisneo/lollms-webui`pkg:github/parisneo/lollms-webui`Other threats	Affected =9.8	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-6040, organizations should: 1) Implement anti-CSRF tokens on all affected endpoints to ensure requests originate from legitimate sources. 2) Validate the presence and correctness of the client_id parameter in the lollms_binding_infos endpoint and related API calls to prevent unauthorized requests. 3) Restrict access to binding management endpoints through network segmentation, IP whitelisting, or VPN access to reduce exposure. 4) Educate users about phishing risks to minimize the chance of user interaction leading to exploitation. 5) Monitor logs for unusual activity on the affected endpoints, such as unexpected binding changes. 6) Engage with the vendor or community to obtain patches or updates addressing this vulnerability as soon as they become available. 7) Consider implementing Web Application Firewalls (WAF) rules to detect and block CSRF attack patterns targeting these endpoints. 8) Regularly review and update security configurations in the web UI to align with best practices for session and request validation.

Description

In parisneo/lollms-webui version v9.8, the lollms_binding_infos is missing the client_id parameter, which leads to multiple security vulnerabilities. Specifically, the endpoints /reload_binding, /install_binding, /reinstall_binding, /unInstall_binding, /set_active_binding_settings, and /update_binding_settings are susceptible to CSRF attacks and local attacks. An attacker can exploit this vulnerability to perform unauthorized actions on the victim's machine.

Impact

For European organizations deploying parisneo/lollms-webui, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized modification of binding configurations, potentially disrupting AI/ML workflows or causing denial of service conditions. Integrity of configuration data is at risk, which may result in incorrect model bindings or degraded system performance. Availability could be impacted if bindings are uninstalled or reloaded maliciously. Although the attack requires user interaction, phishing or social engineering could facilitate exploitation. Confidentiality impact is minimal since the vulnerability does not expose sensitive data directly. Organizations relying on this software for AI model management or integration could face operational interruptions, affecting business continuity and service reliability. The medium severity suggests moderate risk but should not be underestimated in environments where AI/ML services are critical. The absence of known exploits provides a window for proactive mitigation before active attacks emerge.

CWE-352Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) (opens in a new tab)
Compound weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #3OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
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.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Implementation
Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
Architecture and Design
Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization Testing Automation (opens in a new tab)
Insecure Direct Object Reference Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V4.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking) (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Domain Search Timing (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Identification (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

huntr.com/bounties/ac0bbb1d-89aa-42ba-bc48-1b59bd16acc7 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 15 Oct 2025, 13:38 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-352

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats