WordPressCMS
CVE-2013-7233
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 retrospam component in wp-admin/options-discussion.php in WordPress 2.0.11 and earlier allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of administrators for requests that move comments to the moderation list.
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 confidenceCross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the retrospam component of WordPress admin (wp-admin/options-discussion.php) in versions 2.0.11 and earlier. Attackers can trick authenticated administrators into unknowingly submitting requests that move comments to the moderation list by embedding malicious requests in links or forms.
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
<= 2.0.11= 2.0= 2.0.1= 2.0.2= 2.0.4= 2.0.5= 2.0.6= 2.0.7= 2.0.8= 2.0.9= 2.0.10CVSS 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.
-
Check installed WordPress versionLocate the wp-includes/version.php file and read the $wp_version variable, or check the meta generator tag in the HTML source of any wp-admin pageAffected if Version is 2.0.11 or any 2.0.x version <= 2.0.11 (specifically 2.0, 2.0.1, 2.0.2, 2.0.4, 2.0.5, 2.0.6, 2.0.7, 2.0.8, 2.0.9, 2.0.10)
-
Verify options-discussion.php existsAccess wp-admin/options-discussion.php in the browser or check the filesystem at wp-admin/options-discussion.phpAffected if File exists and is accessible in the wp-admin directory
-
Check for retrospam form elementsInspect the HTML source of wp-admin/options-discussion.php and search for form fields related to 'retrospam' or comment moderation functionalityAffected if The page contains a form with retrospam-related fields (such as move-to-moderation inputs) without visible nonce token fields
-
Confirm admin access is possibleAttempt to log in as an administrator and navigate to Discussion settings (wp-admin/options-discussion.php)Affected if Authenticated administrator session can access the vulnerable page
You are affected if running WordPress version 2.0.11 or earlier and the wp-admin/options-discussion.php page with retrospam functionality is accessible to administrators.
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 WordPress beyond version 2.0.11 to a supported, patched version. If upgrading is not immediately feasible, implement anti-CSRF tokens (nonces) on the affected form actions.
Fix this in WordPress
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-7233 — 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-2013-7233 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