MaspikWordPress extension · Wpmaspik
CVE-2023-24008
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 yonifre Maspik – Spam Blacklist plugin <= 0.7.8 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 the Maspik WordPress plugin (spam blacklist) versions 0.7.8 and below allows attackers to trick authenticated administrators into performing unwanted configuration actions, such as modifying spam blacklist settings or other state-changing operations, by leveraging the lack of proper anti-CSRF token validation on admin 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
MaspikWordPress extension
<= 0.7.8CVSS 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 Maspik plugin is installedNavigate to WordPress admin dashboard under Plugins > Installed Plugins, or inspect the wp-content/plugins/maspik directory on the serverAffected if The Maspik plugin appears in the list of installed plugins
-
Identify installed Maspik versionIn WordPress admin, find the Maspik plugin entry and read the version number displayed below the plugin name, or open maspik.php in wp-content/plugins/maspik/ and locate the 'Version:' header commentAffected if The version number shown is 0.7.8 or lower
-
Confirm vulnerability applies to your setupVerify that the site has active administrator accounts and that the Maspik plugin settings page (usually under Settings > Maspik or similar) is accessible to adminsAffected if You have administrator access to WordPress and can access the Maspik plugin configuration area
You are affected if the Maspik plugin is installed with version 0.7.8 or lower and you have administrator access to manage its settings, since the lack of anti-CSRF nonce validation allows attackers to socially engineer you into making unintended configuration changes.
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 Maspik plugin to the latest version which implements proper nonce verification for all state-changing operations. If no patch is available, consider removing the plugin until a fix is released.
Fix this in Maspik
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-24008 — 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-2023-24008 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