Png To JpgWordPress extension · Png To Jpg Project
CVE-2022-29430
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 Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in KubiQ's PNG to JPG plugin <= 4.0 at WordPress via Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF). Vulnerable parameter &jpg_quality.
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 confidenceA Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in the KubiQ PNG to JPG WordPress plugin (versions <= 4.0) in the jpg_quality parameter. The vulnerability is exploitable via Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF), allowing attackers to inject malicious scripts through the unsanitized jpg_quality setting without directly authenticating to WordPress.
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
Png To JpgWordPress extension
<= 4.0CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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.
-
Confirm plugin is installedIn WordPress admin, go to Plugins > Installed Plugins and look for 'Png To Jpg' or 'Png To Jpg Project' in the listAffected if The plugin appears in the installed plugins list
-
Check plugin versionClick on the plugin name in the WordPress plugins list to view version details, or inspect the main plugin file header in wp-content/plugins/png-to-jpg/ for the 'Version' fieldAffected if Version displayed is 4.0 or lower (e.g., 4.0, 3.9, 3.8, etc.)
-
Verify jpg_quality setting existsAccess the plugin settings page in WordPress admin (usually under Settings > Png To Jpg or a dedicated plugin admin page) and locate the jpg_quality parameter/optionAffected if A jpg_quality setting field is present and configurable in the plugin settings
-
Test parameter sanitizationSubmit a test value containing script tags (e.g., <script>alert(1)</script>) to the jpg_quality parameter via the plugin settings form, then inspect the saved value or page output to see if the tags are reflected as-is (unescaped)Affected if The script tags are rendered unescaped in the page source or admin area, indicating lack of input sanitization
You are affected if the Png To Jpg plugin (versions 4.0 or below) is installed and active, and the jpg_quality parameter reflects unsanitized input in the plugin settings page.
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 the plugin to the latest version if available; otherwise, deactivate the plugin until a patch is released. The fix requires adding WordPress nonces for CSRF protection and proper input sanitization/validation on the jpg_quality parameter.
Fix this in Png To Jpg
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-2022-29430 — 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-2022-29430 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