WordPressCMS
CVE-2007-0541
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedWordPress allows remote attackers to determine the existence of arbitrary files, and possibly read portions of certain files, via pingback service calls with a source URI that corresponds to a local pathname, which triggers different fault codes for existing and non-existing files, and in certain configurations causes a brief file excerpt to be published as a blog comment.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceWordPress pingback service allows remote attackers to determine existence of arbitrary files via source URI paths that correspond to local pathnames, returning different fault codes for existing vs non-existing files and potentially exposing file excerpts as blog comments in certain configurations.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
WordPressCMS
<= 2.0CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check WordPress versionLocate the file wp-includes/version.php and read the $wp_version variable, or view the version information in the WordPress admin dashboard under About WordPressAffected if The installed version is 2.0 or any earlier version
-
Verify XMLRPC endpoint is accessibleAttempt to access the XMLRPC endpoint at /xmlrpc.php on your WordPress installation and confirm it respondsAffected if The XMLRPC endpoint returns a valid response indicating the service is enabled
-
Confirm pingback API is availableSend a test XML-RPC request to the pingback.ping method endpoint and verify it accepts the requestAffected if The pingback API responds to method calls, indicating pingback functionality is active
-
Check for file existence responsesUsing the pingback source URI parameter with paths like /etc/passwd or Windows equivalents, observe whether different fault codes are returned for existing versus non-existing file pathsAffected if The pingback service returns distinguishable responses that reveal file existence
A WordPress installation is affected if it runs version 2.0 or earlier with the XMLRPC pingback functionality enabled and accessible, as the vulnerability allows remote attackers to probe for file existence through the pingback source URI parameter.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpdate WordPress to a patched version or disable the XMLRPC pingback functionality if updating is not feasible; this is a well-documented 2007 vulnerability in older WordPress versions.
Fix this in WordPress
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2007-0541 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2007-0541 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data