SeosambaWordPress extension
CVE-2022-41620
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 SeoSamba for WordPress Webmasters plugin <= 1.0.5 versions.
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 · moderate confidenceCross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in SeoSamba for WordPress Webmasters plugin versions 1.0.5 and below allows attackers to trick authenticated administrators into performing unintended actions via maliciously crafted requests.
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
SeosambaWordPress extension
<= 1.0.5CVSS 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
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 if SeoSamba plugin is installedNavigate to WordPress wp-content/plugins directory and look for a folder named 'seosamba' or 'seosamba-seosamba'. Alternatively, check the WordPress admin plugins list for 'SeoSamba for WordPress Webmasters'.Affected if Plugin folder exists in wp-content/plugins or plugin appears in WordPress admin panel.
-
Identify installed plugin versionIf the plugin folder exists, open the main plugin PHP file (usually named seosamba.php or similar) and look for the version header comment at the top (e.g., 'Version: 1.0.5').Affected if Version is 1.0.5 or lower.
-
Verify anti-CSRF protection absence in formsExamine the plugin PHP source code for nonce verification. Search for 'wp_nonce_field', 'wp_nonce_url', 'check_admin_referer', or 'check_ajax_referer' functions in form-handling code and AJAX action handlers.Affected if No nonce verification is found in plugin forms or AJAX handlers, or these functions are present but not properly implemented.
-
Check for HTTP Referer validationReview the plugin code for HTTP Referer header validation (looking for '$_SERVER[HTTP_REFERER]' or 'wp_referer_field' checks) in admin action handlers.Affected if No Referer header validation is implemented in the plugin.
User is affected if the SeoSamba plugin is installed with version 1.0.5 or below and lacks proper anti-CSRF nonce verification in its forms and AJAX 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 dataUpdate to a patched version if available; otherwise, implement anti-CSRF nonces in all plugin forms and AJAX actions, and validate the HTTP Referer header.
Fix this in Seosamba
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-41620 — 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-2022-41620 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