{"answers":{"affected":"2 open source packages ship an affected version, including processwire/processwire. It affects 1 product.","exploited":"It is not confirmed as exploited in the wild, but public exploit code for CVE-2024-41597 exists.","fix":"No fix has been published for CVE-2024-41597 yet. Limit exposure of the affected software until one is available.","what":"CVE-2024-41597 is a medium-severity vulnerability in n/a, published on 19 Jul 2024. An attacker can exploit it over the internet without logging in, and only if a user opens a file or follows a link."},"fix_prompt":"Check this codebase for CVE-2024-41597 and fix it if it is affected.\n\nWhat it is: CVE-2024-41597 is a medium-severity vulnerability in n/a, published on 19 Jul 2024. An attacker can exploit it over the internet without logging in, and only if a user opens a file or follows a link.\nExploitation: It is not confirmed as exploited in the wild, but public exploit code for CVE-2024-41597 exists.\n\nAffected packages and fixed versions:\n- processwire/processwire (Packagist): affected all versions up to 3.0.229; no fix listed\n- processwire/processwire (Packagist): affected all versions up to 3.0.229; no fix listed\n\nTask:\n1. Search the dependency manifests and lockfiles (for example package.json, package-lock.json, requirements.txt, poetry.lock, uv.lock, pom.xml, build.gradle, go.mod, Cargo.lock, Gemfile.lock) and any Dockerfiles for the affected packages, including transitive dependencies.\n2. If an affected version is in use, upgrade it to the fixed version for its release line with the project's package manager, so the lockfile is regenerated. Prefer the smallest upgrade that fixes it.\n3. If there is no fix, or the upgrade would break the build, do not guess: explain the risk and the safest workaround instead.\n4. Run the tests and summarise what changed and why.\n5. If nothing in the project is affected, say so and change nothing.\n\nReference: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2024-41597/ (Markdown: https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2024-41597/index.md)","id":"CVE-2024-41597","markdown":"https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2024-41597/index.md","name":"CVE-2024-41597","record":{"aliases":["GHSA-r9vw-cjf9-xh4x"],"analysis":{"component_type":"web_application","fix_type":"no_fix_stated","impacts":["data_modify"],"network_reachable":"yes","non_default_config":false,"product_category":"ProcessWire CMS","requires_auth":"none","summary":"A remote attacker could potentially insert comments via CSRF, though the vendor disputes this due to anonymous comment features and moderation defaults.","user_interaction":"required","vuln_class":"csrf"},"analysis_generated_by":"qwen3.8-flash-next","assigner":"mitre","cpe":[{"product":"processwire","vendor":"processwire"}],"cvss":{"score":4.2,"severity":"medium","source":"cisa-adp","vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N","version":"3.1"},"cwes":[{"id":"CWE-352","name":"Cross-Site Request Forgery"}],"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.","ecosystems":["Packagist"],"exploits":{"exploitdb":0,"first_seen":null,"github_poc":0,"max_poc_stars":null,"metasploit":0,"nuclei":0,"refs":[],"tier":"weaponised"},"has_fix":false,"headline":"ProcessWire Cross Site Request Forgery vulnerability","id":"CVE-2024-41597","indexable":true,"kev":null,"kind":"cve","links":{"ecosystem":"Packagist","product":null,"products":[],"type":"csrf","year":"2024"},"n_packages":2,"n_references":1,"next":{"headline":"Cross-site scripting in n/a","id":"CVE-2024-41599"},"packages":[{"ecosystem":"Packagist","fixed":[],"introduced":["0"],"last_affected":["3.0.229"],"package":"processwire/processwire","purl":null,"source":"GHSA-r9vw-cjf9-xh4x"},{"ecosystem":"Packagist","fixed":[],"introduced":["0"],"last_affected":["3.0.229"],"package":"processwire/processwire","purl":"pkg:composer/processwire/processwire","source":"GHSA-r9vw-cjf9-xh4x"}],"prev":{"headline":"Memory corruption in n/a","id":"CVE-2024-41596"},"products":["n/a"],"published":"2024-07-19","related":[{"cvss_score":7.5,"headline":"Path traversal in n/a","id":"CVE-2020-27467","kev_date_added":null,"published":"2022-02-22"},{"cvss_score":7.2,"headline":"Arbitrary Code Execution in Processwire","id":"CVE-2023-24676","kev_date_added":null,"published":"2024-01-24"},{"cvss_score":6.5,"headline":"ProcessWire CMS vulnerable to resource-exhaustion Denial of Service","id":"CVE-2025-60790","kev_date_added":null,"published":"2025-10-21"},{"cvss_score":6.5,"headline":"ProcessWire vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery","id":"CVE-2022-40488","kev_date_added":null,"published":"2022-10-31"},{"cvss_score":6.1,"headline":"ProcessWire vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting","id":"CVE-2022-40487","kev_date_added":null,"published":"2022-10-31"}],"sources":[{"class":"attribution","licence":"CVE Terms of Use (MITRE)","name":"CVE List","prefix":"CVE"},{"class":"attribution","licence":"CC BY 4.0","name":"GitHub Advisory Database","prefix":"GHSA"},{"class":"attribution","licence":"US public information, NVD API terms","name":"NVD"},{"class":"attribution","licence":"CWE Terms of Use","name":"CWE (MITRE)"},{"class":"attribution","licence":"FIRST CVSS licence","name":"CVSS (FIRST)"}],"ssvc":{"automatable":"no","exploitation":"poc","technical_impact":"partial"},"state":"PUBLISHED","updated":"2026-07-09","vendors":["n/a"]},"summary":"A remote attacker could potentially insert comments via CSRF, though the vendor disputes this due to anonymous comment features and moderation defaults.","url":"https://insights.sbomify.com/CVE-2024-41597/"}