CVE-2025-12348
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 Icegram Express - Email Subscribers, Newsletters and Marketing Automation Plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Missing Authorization in versions up to, and including, 5.9.10. This is due to the plugin not properly verifying that a user is authorized to perform an action in the `run_action_scheduler_task` function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to execute scheduled actions early or repeatedly by guessing action IDs, potentially triggering email sends, maintenance tasks, or other privileged operations, causing unexpected state changes and resource usage.
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 Icegram Express WordPress plugin fails to verify user authorization in the `run_action_scheduler_task` function, allowing unauthenticated attackers to invoke scheduled actions by guessing action IDs. This enables manipulation of email sends, maintenance tasks, and other privileged operations without any authentication credentials.
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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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.
-
Identify if Icegram Express plugin is installedCheck your WordPress plugins directory or go to Plugins > Installed Plugins in the WordPress admin dashboard and look for 'Icegram Express' or 'Email Subscribers' (the plugin was formerly known by this name)Affected if The plugin appears in the list of installed plugins
-
Determine the installed version of Icegram ExpressIn WordPress admin, go to Plugins > Installed Plugins and click on the plugin to view its details, or check the plugin header in the main plugin file (typically icegram-express/icegram-express.php) for the 'Version' commentAffected if The version number shown is less than 5.9.11 (for example, 5.9.10, 5.9.9, etc.)
-
Verify the vulnerable function exists in the installed codebaseLocate the plugin files via FTP or file manager, then search for the string 'run_action_scheduler_task' in the plugin directory to confirm the vulnerable function is presentAffected if The function 'run_action_scheduler_task' is found in the plugin files and no apparent authorization wrapper surrounds it
-
Check if the action scheduler REST endpoint is accessibleMake a test request to the REST endpoint typically at /wp-json/icegram-express/v1/action-scheduler/task or inspect the plugin's REST API route registration to confirm public accessibilityAffected if The endpoint responds without requiring authentication or returns a 200 OK status to unauthenticated requests
You are affected if Icegram Express is installed with a version lower than 5.9.11 AND the vulnerable run_action_scheduler_task function is present and accessible without authentication.
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 to version 5.9.11 or later which includes proper authorization verification. If immediate patching is not feasible, restrict access to the affected endpoints at the web server level until the patch can be applied.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-12348 — 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-2025-12348 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