PagerestrictWordPress extension · Sivel
CVE-2024-24702
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 Matt Martz & Andy Stratton Page Restrict.This issue affects Page Restrict: from n/a through 2.5.5.
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 confidenceCross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the Page Restrict WordPress plugin allows attackers to induce authenticated administrators to perform unintended actions by tricking them into visiting malicious pages. The plugin lacks proper nonce verification on state-changing 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
PagerestrictWordPress extension
<= 2.5.5CVSS 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.
-
Check if Page Restrict plugin is installedNavigate to WordPress admin > Plugins and look for 'Page Restrict' by Sivel, or inspect the plugin directory /wp-content/plugins/ for a page-restrict folderAffected if The plugin is present in the WordPress installation
-
Determine the installed version of Page RestrictIn WordPress admin > Plugins, find Page Restrict and view the version number displayed, or open the main plugin file (e.g., page-restrict.php) and check the plugin header for the Version fieldAffected if The version is 2.5.5 or lower
-
Inspect plugin for missing nonce verificationReview the main plugin PHP file for AJAX actions and form handlers. Look for the absence of wp_verify_nonce(), check_admin_referer(), or similar nonce validation calls before processing state-changing operations (e.g., saving settings, updating restrictions)Affected if State-changing functions or AJAX handlers lack nonce verification code
-
Verify if admin actions can be triggered without validationExamine the plugin code for any functions that modify plugin settings or user access restrictions. Check if these functions verify the request origin before executingAffected if The plugin processes admin actions without confirming the request came from a legitimate admin page (no referer check or nonce validation present)
A user is affected if Page Restrict plugin version 2.5.5 or lower is installed and the plugin code lacks nonce verification on its state-changing 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 Page Restrict to the latest version when available, or implement anti-CSRF tokens (WordPress nonces) on all forms and AJAX actions within the plugin to verify request origin.
Fix this in Pagerestrict
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-2024-24702 — 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-2024-24702 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