User Meta ManagerWordPress extension · User Meta
CVE-2023-23712
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 User Meta Manager plugin <= 3.4.9 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 User Meta Manager plugin versions 3.4.9 and below allows attackers to trick authenticated users into performing unintended actions by forcing them to submit malicious requests. The plugin lacks proper CSRF token validation or referrer checking, enabling attackers to execute state-changing operations on behalf of victim users.
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
User Meta ManagerWordPress extension
<= 3.4.9CVSS 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 User Meta Manager plugin is installedNavigate to WordPress admin > Plugins and look for 'User Meta Manager' or check the wp-content/plugins/umm-user-meta-manager directory existsAffected if Plugin is installed and active
-
Determine installed plugin versionIn WordPress admin > Plugins > Installed Plugins > User Meta Manager, read the version number displayed below the plugin name; alternatively, open wp-content/plugins/umm-user-meta-manager/user-meta-manager.php and locate the 'Version' header in the plugin commentsAffected if Version is 3.4.9 or lower
-
Verify plugin is activeIn WordPress admin > Plugins, confirm User Meta Manager shows 'Active' status rather than 'Inactive'Affected if Plugin is active and accessible to users
-
Check for CSRF-protected formsInspect HTML source of any User Meta Manager form (e.g., user profile forms, settings pages) and look for a hidden input field containing a nonce or CSRF token, or check if the form submission includes a _wpnonce parameterAffected if No CSRF token field or nonce parameter is present in state-changing forms
User is affected if User Meta Manager plugin version 3.4.9 or lower is installed and active, as the plugin lacks proper CSRF token validation on state-changing forms.
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 a version newer than 3.4.9 to obtain the vendor's CSRF fix, or implement anti-CSRF tokens on all state-changing forms and verify request referrers server-side.
Fix this in User Meta Manager
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,848.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-23712 — 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-2023-23712 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