Snap PixelWordPress extension · Coresol
CVE-2023-45642
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 Hassan Ali Snap Pixel plugin <= 1.5.7 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 confidenceThis is a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the Hassan Ali Snap Pixel WordPress plugin versions 1.5.7 and below. The plugin lacks proper anti-CSRF token validation on sensitive actions, allowing attackers to trick authenticated administrators into performing unintended operations 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
Snap PixelWordPress extension
<= 1.5.7CVSS 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.
-
Locate the Snap Pixel plugin filesAccess your WordPress installation via FTP or file manager and navigate to /wp-content/plugins/ and look for a folder named 'snap-pixel', 'coresol-snap-pixel', or similar. Alternatively, use WP-CLI: `wp plugin list --status=active --format=csv`Affected if The plugin folder exists and contains the Snap Pixel plugin files
-
Identify the installed versionOpen the main plugin file (usually snap-pixel.php or similar in the plugin folder) and look for the 'Version:' header in the plugin comment block at the top. Or use WP-CLI: `wp plugin get snap-pixel --format=json`Affected if The Version field shows 1.5.7 or any version number lower than 1.5.8
-
Confirm the plugin is activeLog into WordPress admin and go to Plugins > Installed Plugins, or use WP-CLI: `wp plugin status snap-pixel`Affected if The plugin shows as 'Active' or 'Enabled'
-
Verify the vulnerability exists (optional manual check)Inspect the plugin's PHP files for form submissions and AJAX actions. Look for missing wp_verify_nonce or check_ajax_referer calls before sensitive operations. Search for 'nonce' or '_wpnonce' in the plugin code.Affected if No proper nonce validation is found before sensitive actions (this confirms the CSRF vulnerability is present)
Your environment is affected if the Snap Pixel plugin is active and the installed version is 1.5.7 or below, as these versions lack anti-CSRF token validation on sensitive admin 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 dataUpgrade to version 1.5.8 or later which includes proper nonce validation for all form submissions and AJAX actions. If immediate patching is not possible, consider disabling the plugin until the update can be applied.
Fix this in Snap Pixel
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-45642 — 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-2023-45642 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