dbcve.org
Missing AuthorizationWeakness · CWE-862

CVE-2025-11620

HIGH · 7.2 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-11-18
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
78/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable Zero-click

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 · unedited
The Multiple Roles per User plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data due to a missing capability check on the 'mrpu_add_multiple_roles_ui' and 'mrpu_save_multiple_user_roles' functions in all versions up to, and including, 1.0. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, granted the 'edit_users' capability, to edit any user's role, including promoting users to Administrator and demoting Administrators to lower-privileged roles.

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 confidence

The Multiple Roles per User WordPress plugin lacks capability checks on the 'mrpu_add_multiple_roles_ui' and 'mrpu_save_multiple_user_roles' functions, allowing any authenticated user with 'edit_users' capability to modify arbitrary user roles. This Broken Access Control vulnerability enables privilege escalation to Administrator or demotion of existing administrators.

MitigationUntil a patched version is released, restrict or remove the 'edit_users' capability from untrusted roles, or disable the plugin entirely. The vendor should add current_user_can() checks with appropriate capability validation (e.g., 'promite_users' or 'edit_users' with target user level verification) to both vulnerable functions.

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
High
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Verify Multiple Roles per User plugin is installed
    Check the WordPress plugins directory for the 'multiple-roles-per-user' or 'mrpu' folder, or list active plugins via wp-cli: wp plugin list --status=active --format=csv | grep -i 'multiple.*role'
    Affected if The plugin folder exists in wp-content/plugins or the plugin appears in the active plugins list
  2. Locate the vulnerable functions in plugin code
    Search plugin PHP files for 'mrpu_add_multiple_roles_ui' and 'mrpu_save_multiple_user_roles' functions, or inspect the main plugin file for these function definitions
    Affected if Both functions exist in the plugin code without current_user_can() capability checks at the function start
  3. Confirm missing capability validation
    Within each vulnerable function, search for 'current_user_can' or 'capability' checks before role modification logic; verify the absence of proper role-level access control
    Affected if The functions allow role modification without verifying the current user has 'promote_users' or proper 'edit_users' level validation for the target user
  4. Identify users with edit_users capability
    Query WordPress database: SELECT u.user_login, u.display_name FROM wp_users u JOIN wp_usermeta m ON u.ID = m.user_id WHERE m.meta_key = 'wp_capabilities' AND m.meta_value LIKE '%edit_users%'; or use wp-cli: wp user list --role=<role_with_edit_users>
    Affected if Any authenticated user account exists with a role that includes 'edit_users' capability (e.g., Administrator, or custom roles)

A user is affected if the Multiple Roles per User plugin is installed and active, the vulnerable functions exist without current_user_can() checks, and at least one user account has the 'edit_users' capability that could exploit the privilege escalation.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Until a patched version is released, restrict or remove the 'edit_users' capability from untrusted roles, or disable the plugin entirely. The vendor should add current_user_can() checks with appropriate capability validation (e.g., 'promite_users' or 'edit_users' with target user level verification) to both vulnerable functions.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation2.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
7.0 hours of engineering $1,240
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,984.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-11620 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-11620 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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