Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:NSummary
CVE-2024-0590 is a medium-severity CSRF (CWE-352) vulnerability in Microsoft Clarity. Its CVSS base score is 6.1 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked in the top 32% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and SC-23 (Session Authenticity) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
The Microsoft Clarity plugin for WordPress is affected by a cross-site request forgery vulnerability in all versions through 0.9.3. The flaw arises from missing nonce validation on the edit_clarity_project_id() function, which is tracked as CWE-352 and carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 6.1.
Unauthenticated attackers can exploit the issue by crafting a forged request that changes the configured project identifier and injects arbitrary JavaScript; successful exploitation requires the attacker to lure an administrator into performing an action such as clicking a malicious link.
Public references point to a patched changeset in the WordPress plugin repository and a detailed advisory from Wordfence that identify the fixed code revision, indicating that administrators should update to a version newer than 0.9.3. The associated EPSS score remains flat at 0.2476 with no material increase after disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-16383
Vulnerability Data
The Microsoft Clarity plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 0.9.3. This is due to missing nonce validation on the edit_clarity_project_id() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to change…
more
the project id and add malicious JavaScript via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V3.3.2V3.5.1V10.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Access enforcement requires verifying that state-changing requests originate from the authenticated user rather than a forged cross-site source.
Protecting session authenticity prevents attackers from replaying or forging authenticated requests via the victim's browser.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly require anti-CSRF controls such as tokens or SameSite attributes.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
By denying access to phishing or malicious sites, the control lowers the likelihood that a user will be tricked into submitting a forged request that performs an unintended action on another site.
Contextual intelligence about emerging CSRF toolkits can be translated into updated anti-CSRF token or same-site policy configurations across applications.