UnderconstructionWordPress extension · Underconstruction Project
CVE-2013-2699
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 · uneditedCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the underConstruction plugin before 1.09 for WordPress allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that deactivate a plugin via unspecified vectors.
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 confidenceCSRF vulnerability in the underConstruction WordPress plugin (versions before 1.09) allows remote attackers to trick authenticated administrators into deactivating the plugin by forging malicious requests, as the plugin lacks proper anti-CSRF token validation on plugin management actions.
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
UnderconstructionWordPress extension
<= 1.08= 1.0= 1.01= 1.02= 1.03= 1.04= 1.05= 1.06= 1.07CVSS 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
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
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.
-
Confirm underConstruction plugin is installedCheck the WordPress plugins directory (wp-content/plugins) for the underconstruction folder, or list installed plugins via WordPress admin panel.Affected if The underConstruction plugin folder exists in the plugins directory.
-
Identify the installed plugin versionOpen the main plugin file (typically underconstruction.php or index.php inside the underconstruction folder) and locate the version string in the plugin header comment. Compare this version number to the affected range (1.0 through 1.08, or any version <= 1.08).Affected if The reported version is 1.08 or earlier.
-
Verify if the plugin is currently activeLog into WordPress admin and navigate to Plugins > Installed Plugins, or query the wp_options table for the active_plugins option to check if underconstruction is enabled.Affected if The plugin is active and running on the site.
-
Check for nonce validation on plugin deactivation requestsReview the plugin PHP source code for the function handling plugin deactivation or management actions. Look for calls to wp_verify_nonce, check_admin_referer, or similar nonce verification functions within the action handler.Affected if No nonce verification is present in the plugin management action handlers (the code lacks anti-CSRF token validation).
You are affected if the underConstruction plugin is installed, active, and running version 1.08 or earlier without nonce validation on administrative actions.
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 dataUpgrade to plugin version 1.09 or later which includes proper nonce/CSRF protection for administrative actions, or implement WordPress nonces on all plugin management endpoints.
Fix this in Underconstruction
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,424.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-2699 — 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-2013-2699 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