CVE-2025-12376
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 Icon List Block – Add Icon-Based Lists with Custom Styles plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.2.1 via the fs_api_request function. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to make web requests to arbitrary locations originating from the web application and can be used to query and modify information from internal services. Only valid JSON objects are rendered in the response.
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 Icon List Block WordPress plugin contains an SSRF vulnerability in the fs_api_request function, allowing authenticated users with Subscriber-level access to make arbitrary web requests from the server. Attackers can probe internal services and exfiltrate data, with only JSON responses returned.
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
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/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.
-
Verify Icon List Block plugin is installedNavigate to WordPress admin > Plugins and look for 'Icon List Block' in the installed plugins list. Note the currently installed version displayed next to the plugin name.Affected if The plugin is installed and active in WordPress
-
Check installed plugin version against vulnerable rangeIn WordPress admin, go to Plugins > Installed Plugins > Icon List Block. Compare the version number shown against known affected versions. If version is 1.2.1 or lower, the vulnerability is likely present.Affected if Installed version is 1.2.1 or lower (no patch available at time of assessment)
-
Confirm Subscriber-level user accounts existIn WordPress admin, go to Users > All Users. Review the list for any users assigned the 'Subscriber' role. Click on each user to verify their role assignment.Affected if Any user account with Subscriber role exists on the site
-
Check if plugin REST API endpoints are publicly accessibleUse a web browser or curl to access the site's REST API endpoints related to the plugin, such as /wp-json/icon-list-block/v1/ or similar paths. Attempt a request without authentication or as a Subscriber-level user.Affected if The plugin's API endpoints accept requests from authenticated users with Subscriber permissions and return JSON responses
The environment is affected if the Icon List Block plugin is installed with version 1.2.1 or lower AND any Subscriber-level user account exists, allowing the fs_api_request function to be exploited for SSRF attacks.
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 the plugin to a version beyond 1.2.1 when available. Until patched, restrict the fs_api_request function to authenticated administrators only and implement URL allowlist validation to prevent requests to internal/private network addresses.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-12376 — 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-2025-12376 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