Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)Weakness · CWE-352

CVE-2025-23499

HIGH · 7.1 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-01-16
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
78/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges

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 · unedited
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Pascal Casier Board Election board-election allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Board Election: from n/a through <= 1.0.1.

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 · moderate confidence

A CSRF vulnerability in the Board Election plugin allows authenticated attackers to inject stored XSS payloads. By tricking an administrator into visiting a malicious site while logged in, attackers can submit crafted requests that store malicious scripts in the election board content, which then execute when other users view the affected pages.

MitigationImplement anti-CSRF tokens on all state-changing forms and validate/sanitize all user inputs to prevent XSS injection.

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
Required
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
Low

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify if Board Election plugin is installed
    Check the plugins or extensions list in the application admin panel, or search for plugin files named 'board election', 'election', or similar in the plugins/extensions directory
    Affected if Board Election plugin is present in the system
  2. Verify the plugin is enabled and active
    Confirm the plugin status in the admin panel shows it as enabled, or check the database configuration tables for the plugin's enabled state
    Affected if Plugin is enabled and operational
  3. Inspect election board content for suspicious scripts
    Access the election board content areas in the application and view the HTML source of displayed content, or query the database tables storing election board entries for script tags, iframe tags, or event handlers like onload/onerror
    Affected if Stored XSS payloads (script tags, javascript: URIs, or event handlers) are present in election board content
  4. Check state-changing forms for anti-CSRF protection
    View the HTML source of forms that modify election board content (create/edit/delete entries) and verify each form includes a hidden CSRF token field or anti-CSRF token in the request headers
    Affected if Forms lack CSRF tokens or have no anti-CSRF validation mechanism
  5. Review election board content storage for lack of sanitization
    Attempt to submit benign test input with HTML characters (<script>alert(1)</script>) through the election board submission form, then verify if the application stores and displays the raw HTML without encoding or sanitization
    Affected if User input is stored and rendered without sanitization or encoding

You are affected if the Board Election plugin is installed and enabled, election board content displays unsanitized user input, or the plugin's forms lack anti-CSRF protection.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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.

dbcve · scoped
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement anti-CSRF tokens on all state-changing forms and validate/sanitize all user inputs to prevent XSS injection.

Recommended fix High confidence

Board Election plugin version 1.0.2 or later

  1. Update the Board Election plugin to version 1.0.2 or later
  2. Verify the update was successfully applied by checking the plugin version in WordPress admin
  3. Test the board election functionality to confirm the CSRF protection is working and no stored XSS can be injected

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
9.0 hours of engineering $1,600
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-23499 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-23499 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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