Wp ExtraWordPress extension · Wpvnteam
CVE-2023-46212
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 · uneditedMissing Authorization, Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in TienCOP WP EXtra allows Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs, Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects WP EXtra: from n/a through 6.2.
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 confidenceCSRF with missing authorization in WP EXtra plugin allows attackers to trick authenticated administrators into performing unauthorized actions by exploiting the absence of anti-CSRF tokens and proper capability checks, enabling privilege escalation or configuration changes.
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
Wp ExtraWordPress extension
<= 6.2CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/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.
-
Identify plugin versionNavigate to WordPress admin dashboard > Plugins > Installed Plugins, locate 'Wp Extra' by Wpvnteam, and read the version number displayedAffected if Version is 6.2 or lower, or version cannot be determined but plugin is present
-
Confirm plugin is activeIn the same plugins list, verify that the Wp Extra plugin shows as 'Active'Affected if Plugin is installed and activated on the site
-
Inspect admin functions for nonce validationAccess the plugin files via file manager or FTP, navigate to wp-content/plugins/wp-extra, and search PHP files for state-changing functions (POST/GET handlers) that lack wp_verify_nonce or check_admin_referer callsAffected if Admin action functions exist without nonce verification code
-
Inspect admin functions for capability checksWithin the same plugin files, search for current_user_can or similar authorization calls before executing privileged operationsAffected if Privileged functions lack capability checks like current_user_can('manage_options') or equivalent authorization logic
-
Verify authenticated admin access existsReview user roles and confirm administrator-level accounts exist on the WordPress siteAffected if Authenticated administrators have access to the WordPress admin panel
Your environment is affected if the Wp Extra plugin version 6.2 or lower is installed and active, and the plugin contains admin functions without anti-CSRF nonces and capability checks.
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) for all state-changing operations and add proper capability/authorization checks before executing sensitive functions to constrain actions by ACL.
Fix this in Wp Extra
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-46212 — 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-2023-46212 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