MaspikWordPress extension · Wpmaspik
CVE-2023-48272
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 · uneditedImproper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in yonifre Maspik – Spam Blacklist allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Maspik – Spam Blacklist: from n/a through 0.9.2.
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 confidenceA stored Cross-site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in the Maspik – Spam Blacklist WordPress plugin (versions through 0.9.2). The plugin fails to properly sanitize user-supplied input, allowing attackers to inject malicious JavaScript code that persists in the database and executes when administrators or other users view affected pages in the WordPress admin panel.
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
<= 0.9.2CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
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 installedGo to WordPress admin > Plugins > Installed Plugins and look for 'Maspik - Spam Blacklist' or check via FTP/filesystem in /wp-content/plugins/ for maspik folderAffected if Maspik plugin is found in the installation
-
Identify installed Maspik versionIn WordPress admin > Plugins, find Maspik and note the version number displayed under the plugin nameAffected if Version is 0.9.2 or lower (any version through 0.9.2)
-
Verify plugin is activeCheck the status column in WordPress admin > Plugins list - the plugin shows as 'Active'Affected if Plugin is active and running on the site
-
Inspect Maspik plugin options in databaseAccess WordPress database via phpMyAdmin or wp-cli: `wp db query "SELECT * FROM wp_options WHERE option_name LIKE '%maspik%'"` - examine stored values for any unsanitized or encoded content that could contain script tagsAffected if Database contains option values with raw HTML, script tags, or unescaped special characters in Maspik-related settings
The site is affected if Maspik plugin version 0.9.2 or lower is installed and active, with any unsanitized user input stored in its database options.
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 Maspik – Spam Blacklist to the latest version beyond 0.9.2 which should contain proper input sanitization and output encoding. If no update is available, manually review and sanitize all input handling code using WordPress sanitization functions (sanitize_text_field, wp_kses, etc.) and implement proper output escaping.
Fix this in Maspik
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-48272 — 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-2023-48272 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