PixfieldsWordPress extension · Pixelgrade
CVE-2023-45655
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 PixelGrade PixFields plugin <= 0.7.0 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 PixelGrade PixFields WordPress plugin versions 0.7.0 and below allows attackers to trick authenticated users into performing unintended actions (such as modifying plugin settings or data) by forcing their browser to send malicious 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
PixfieldsWordPress extension
<= 0.7.0CVSS 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
- 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.
-
Verify PixFields plugin is installedIn WordPress admin, go to Plugins > Installed Plugins and look for 'PixelGrade PixFields' or check the plugin files in /wp-content/plugins/ directory for the pixfields folderAffected if The plugin is present in the WordPress installation
-
Determine installed plugin versionCheck the plugin header in pixfields/pixfields.php for 'Version:' value, or view the plugin details page in WordPress admin_plugins listAffected if Version is 0.7.0 or lower
-
Identify state-changing forms in the pluginSearch plugin PHP files for form tags (action=, method=POST) and AJAX endpoints (admin-ajax.php, wp_ajax_) that modify settings or dataAffected if Plugin contains forms or AJAX endpoints that can alter plugin configuration or data
-
Inspect forms for anti-CSRF nonce implementationSearch plugin source code for wp_nonce_field, wp_create_nonce, or nonce verification (check_admin_referer, wp_verify_nonce) in form handling codeAffected if Forms processing state changes lack nonce tokens or nonce verification is missing
-
Check AJAX handlers for nonce validationSearch AJAX callback functions for nonce verification using check_ajax_referer or wp_verify_nonce before processing requestsAffected if AJAX endpoints handling state changes do not validate nonces
User is affected if PixelGrade PixFields plugin version 0.7.0 or lower is installed AND the plugin contains forms or AJAX endpoints that lack nonce token validation for CSRF protection.
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 dataImplement anti-CSRF tokens (nonces) on all state-changing operations (forms, AJAX requests) and validate the Origin/Referer headers to ensure requests originate from legitimate sources.
Fix this in Pixfields
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 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 $2,880.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-45655 — 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-2023-45655 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