CVE-2024-12293
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 · uneditedThe User Role Editor plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 4.64.3. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the update_roles() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to add or remove roles for arbitrary users, including escalating their privileges to administrator, via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.
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 · high confidenceThe User Role Editor WordPress plugin is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to 4.64.3 due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the update_roles() function. This allows unauthenticated attackers to forge administrative requests to add or remove roles from arbitrary users, including privilege escalation to administrator level, by tricking site administrators into clicking malicious links.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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.
-
Confirm User Role Editor plugin is installedNavigate to WordPress admin dashboard > Plugins and locate 'User Role Editor' in the installed plugins list. If not present, this CVE does not apply.Affected if Plugin is installed
-
Identify installed version numberClick 'View details' on the User Role Editor plugin in the Plugins page, or check the plugin header in /wp-content/plugins/user-role-editor/user-role-editor.php for the 'Version' comment.Affected if Version is lower than 4.64.4
-
Verify the update_roles() function is accessibleCheck if the plugin's ajax handlers are registered. Inspect the file user-role-editor.php for the update_roles action hook and verify the function exists without nonce validation checks.Affected if update_roles() function exists without wp_verify_nonce() or check_admin_referer() validation
-
Check for admin session exposure riskReview whether administrators in your environment commonly click links in emails or external sites, as this attack requires tricking an admin into clicking a crafted URL.Affected if Administrators are susceptible to social engineering via malicious links
User is affected if User Role Editor plugin is installed with a version lower than 4.64.4 and the update_roles() function lacks nonce validation, allowing privilege escalation via forged admin requests.
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 User Role Editor plugin to version 4.64.4 or later which includes proper nonce validation. Until updated, avoid clicking untrusted links while logged into WordPress admin.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-12293 — 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-2024-12293 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