CVE-2025-13587
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 Two Factor (2FA) Authentication via Email plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Two-Factor Authentication Bypass in versions up to, and including, 1.9.8. This is because the SS88_2FAVE::wp_login() method only enforces the 2FA requirement if the 'token' HTTP GET parameter is undefined, which makes it possible to bypass two-factor authentication by supplying any value in the 'token' parameter during login, including an empty one.
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 WordPress 'Two Factor (2FA) Authentication via Email' plugin up to version 1.9.8 contains an authentication bypass vulnerability. The wp_login() method incorrectly checks for the presence of a 'token' GET parameter rather than validating its value—if any value (including an empty string) is supplied in the token parameter, the 2FA enforcement is skipped entirely, allowing attackers to complete login with only valid username/password 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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 the Two Factor (2FA) Authentication via Email plugin is installedCheck your WordPress plugins list in wp-admin under Plugins, or inspect the /wp-content/plugins/ directory for a folder containing 'two-factor' or similar namingAffected if The plugin is present and active in your WordPress installation
-
Determine the installed plugin versionView the plugin details in WordPress admin (Plugins > Installed Plugins > Plugin Details) or open the main plugin PHP file and look for the 'Version' header in the plugin commentsAffected if The version number is 1.9.8 or lower
-
Check if 2FA enforcement is enabledNavigate to the plugin settings in WordPress admin (usually under Settings or a dedicated 2FA settings page) and verify whether 2FA is required for user loginsAffected if 2FA is enabled or required for authentication in the plugin configuration
-
Verify the vulnerable code pattern existsInspect the plugin source code, specifically the wp_login() method. Look for conditional logic that checks for the existence of $_GET['token'] or similar token parameter without validating that the token value is non-empty and validAffected if The code contains a check like 'if (isset($_GET['token']))' that bypasses 2FA without validating the token value
You are affected if the plugin is installed with version 1.9.8 or lower and 2FA is enabled, because the authentication bypass allows completion of login with only username/password by providing any token parameter value.
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 version 1.9.9 or later which properly validates the token value instead of merely checking for its presence. Until then, consider disabling the plugin or implementing alternative 2FA mechanisms.
- Consultation2.0 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 $2,512.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-13587 — 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-2025-13587 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