GHSA-p6mr-xf3r-ghq4 CVE-2026-34749
Payload has a CSRF Protection Bypass in Authentication Flow
- Severity
- 5.4 / 10
- Medium · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.13%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 2.91% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-352 Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
- Fix
3.79.1- Upgrade payload to this version or later
Description
Impact
A Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability existed in the authentication flow. Under certain conditions, the configured CSRF protection could be bypassed, allowing cross-site requests to be made.
Consumers are affected if ALL of these are true:
- Payload version < v3.79.1
serverURLis configured
Patches
This vulnerability has been patched in v3.79.1. Additional validation has been added to the authentication flow.
Consumers should upgrade to v3.79.1 or later.
Workarounds
There is no complete workaround without upgrading.
If consumers cannot upgrade immediately, setting cookies.sameSite to 'Strict' will prevent the session cookie from being sent cross-site. However, this will also require users to re-authenticate when navigating to the application from external links (e.g. email, other sites).
Affected versions
npm
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| payload | < 3.79.1 |
3.79.1 |
How to fix
Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.
payload npm → 3.79.1
- npm
npm install payload@3.79.1- yarn
yarn add payload@3.79.1- pnpm
pnpm add payload@3.79.1
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 5.4
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
Weakness
CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
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.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482]. For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330] Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]
- 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). [REF-332]
- Architecture and Design: Identify especially dangerous operations. When the user performs a dangerous operation, send a separate confirmation request to ensure that the user intended to perform that operation.
- Architecture and Design: Use the "double-submitted cookie" method as described by Felten and Zeller: When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user's machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as a form value and also as a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form value and the cookie value are the same. Because of the same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult. This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled. [REF-331]
- Architecture and Design: Do not use the GET method for any request that triggers a state change.
- Implementation: Check the HTTP Referer header to see if the request originated from an expected page. This could break legitimate functionality, because users or proxies may have disabled sending the Referer for privacy reasons.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-9qpg-3cf8-w33x Payload: Uploaded XML files could execute same-origin JavaScript | High | Also affects payload |
| GHSA-v5gf-vpjc-pc7w Payload: Unauthenticated account-lockout denial of service | High | Also affects payload |
| GHSA-p223-2wr2-j562 Payload: Incomplete validation during the upload file lifecycle | High | Also affects payload |
| GHSA-66wr-7vmr-p5jq Payload authentication token field handling issue | Critical | Also affects payload |
| GHSA-2pwp-2369-8fg3 Payload: Bypassed sanitization of user uploaded SVGs | High | Also affects payload |
| GHSA-pj5h-5q6c-3pfx Payload external upload trust validation issue | High | Also affects payload |
| GHSA-f7hx-52q9-hcrf Payload: Unauthorized update to collection documents | Critical | Also affects payload |
| GHSA-97rh-rhh2-7vjv Payload: Remote Code Execution through first-register | High | Also affects payload |
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor