CVE-2025-12962
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 Local Syndication plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.5a via the `url` parameter in the `[syndicate_local]` shortcode. This is due to the use of `wp_remote_get()` instead of `wp_safe_remote_get()` which lacks protections against requests to internal/private IP addresses and localhost. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and above, to make web requests to arbitrary locations originating from the web application, which can be used to query and modify information from internal services, scan internal networks, and access resources that should not be accessible from external networks.
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 Local Syndication WordPress plugin uses `wp_remote_get()` instead of the safer `wp_safe_remote_get()` in its `[syndicate_local]` shortcode. This allows authenticated attackers with Contributor-level access or higher to supply arbitrary URLs via the `url` parameter, enabling SSRF attacks to internal services, private IP addresses, and localhost resources.
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 Local Syndication plugin is installedIn WordPress admin, go to Plugins > Installed Plugins and search for 'Local Syndication' or check wp-content/plugins/ directory for the syndication-local folderAffected if The plugin is installed and active
-
Confirm plugin versionCheck the plugin header in syndication-local/syndication-local.php for the Version: field, or view in Plugins list in WordPress adminAffected if Version is unknown or unpatched (no fixed version specified in CVE)
-
Detect vulnerable function call in shortcode handlerSearch plugin files for 'wp_remote_get' in the shortcode handler: grep -r 'wp_remote_get' wp-content/plugins/syndication-local/ and examine the context around the [syndicate_local] shortcode functionAffected if Code uses wp_remote_get() instead of wp_safe_remote_get() in the shortcode handler
-
Identify Contributor-level or higher usersIn WordPress admin, go to Users > All Users and filter by role; check for Contributor, Author, Editor, or Administrator rolesAffected if At least one user with Contributor-level access or higher exists who could supply the url parameter
If the Local Syndication plugin is active, uses wp_remote_get() in its [syndicate_local] shortcode, and has any Contributor+ users, the environment is vulnerable to SSRF via the url parameter.
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 dataReplace `wp_remote_get()` with `wp_safe_remote_get()` in the shortcode handler to prevent requests to internal/private IP addresses and localhost, or implement URL allowlist validation for permitted external destinations.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $1,936.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-12962 — 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-2025-12962 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