CVE-2024-33590
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 · uneditedServer-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in codeSavory Knowledge Base documentation & wiki plugin – BasePress.This issue affects Knowledge Base documentation & wiki plugin – BasePress: from n/a through 2.16.1.
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 confidenceThis is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the BasePress WordPress plugin. The vulnerability allows an attacker to make the server-side application perform requests to arbitrary URLs, potentially accessing internal services, cloud metadata endpoints, or bypassing network restrictions.
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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/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.
-
Locate BasePress plugin versionCheck the WordPress admin panel under Plugins > Installed Plugins, or inspect the plugin's main file (usually basepress.php) and look for the 'Version' header commentAffected if Cannot locate version or version field is missing
-
Compare installed version to fixed releaseCompare the installed BasePress version number against 2.16.2 - any version lower than 2.16.2 is affectedAffected if Installed version is lower than 2.16.2 (e.g., 2.16.1, 2.16.0, 2.15.x, etc.)
-
Verify plugin is activeConfirm BasePress is enabled in WordPress admin under Plugins > Installed Plugins - an inactive plugin with a vulnerable version does not expose the SSRF flawAffected if Plugin version is below 2.16.2 AND the plugin is currently activated
-
Check for SSRF-inducing configurationReview BasePress settings in WordPress admin under BasePress > Settings - look for any features that accept URLs, external API endpoints, or allow fetching remote contentAffected if Vulnerable version is active AND the plugin has URL-fetching or external request features enabled
You are affected if BasePress plugin version is below 2.16.2, the plugin is active, and the vulnerable URL-handling feature is in use or accessible.
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 BasePress plugin to version 2.16.2 or later. If immediate update is not possible, review and restrict outbound network requests from the server and monitor for suspicious internal network access patterns.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $2,832.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-33590 — 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-2024-33590 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