CVE-2025-13748
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 Fluent Forms – Customizable Contact Forms, Survey, Quiz, & Conversational Form Builder plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Insecure Direct Object Reference in all versions up to, and including, 6.1.7 via the 'submission_id' parameter due to missing validation on a user controlled key within the confirmScaPayment() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to mark arbitrary submissions as failed via crafted requests to the endpoint granted they can guess or enumerate a valid submission identifier.
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 Fluent Forms plugin contains an IDOR vulnerability in the confirmScaPayment() function where the submission_id parameter is not validated. Unauthenticated attackers can craft requests to mark arbitrary form submissions as failed by manipulating this parameter, provided they can guess or enumerate valid submission identifiers.
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.
-
Verify Fluent Forms plugin is installedIn WordPress admin, go to Plugins > Installed Plugins and look for Fluent Forms. Alternatively, check the file /wp-content/plugins/fluentform/ exists.Affected if Plugin is installed and active
-
Check the installed Fluent Forms versionIn WordPress admin, go to Plugins > Installed Plugins > Fluent Forms and view the version number. Alternatively, check /wp-content/plugins/fluentform/fluentform.php for the 'Version' header in the plugin comments.Affected if Version is lower than 6.1.8
-
Verify SCA payment module is enabledIn WordPress admin, go to Fluent Forms > Settings > Payment Settings and check if any Stripe SCA/SCA Payment methods are enabled.Affected if SCA payment feature is enabled and configured
-
Check for existing form submissionsIn WordPress admin, go to Fluent Forms > All Entries and note if any form submissions exist. The vulnerability allows marking submissions as failed, so existing entries are potential targets.Affected if There are form submissions in the database that could be manipulated
User is affected if Fluent Forms version is below 6.1.8, the SCA payment module is enabled, and there are existing form submissions that could be targeted via manipulated submission_id parameters.
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 6.1.8 or later which includes proper validation of the submission_id parameter, or implement authorization checks to verify the requesting user has permission to modify the specified submission.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-13748 — 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-2025-13748 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