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

CVE-2025-23898

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 ivobrett Apply with LinkedIn buttons apply-with-linkedin-buttons allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Apply with LinkedIn buttons: from n/a through <= 2.3.

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

CSRF vulnerability in the Apply with LinkedIn buttons WordPress plugin (ivobrett) enables Stored XSS attacks. The flaw allows attackers to craft malicious requests that trick authenticated administrators into unknowingly submitting data that contains malicious scripts, which are then persistently stored and executed when other users interact with the plugin's functionality.

MitigationUpdate the plugin to a patched version once available, or disable the plugin until a fix is released. If immediate remediation is required, consider removing the plugin entirely; otherwise, implement proper CSRF tokens and input sanitization in the plugin code.

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. Confirm plugin installation
    In WordPress admin, go to Plugins > Installed Plugins and search for 'Apply with LinkedIn buttons' or 'ivobrett'. Alternatively, check the wp-content/plugins directory for a folder named 'apply-with-linkedin' or similar.
    Affected if The plugin is installed and active in WordPress
  2. Identify plugin version
    In WordPress admin, find the plugin in Plugins > Installed Plugins and look in the version column. Compare this version against any official advisory from the plugin developer listing affected versions.
    Affected if Installed version falls within the affected version range and remains unpatched
  3. Check admin CSRF protection
    Examine the plugin's admin PHP files (typically in the plugin folder) for forms that handle user data. Look for presence of CSRF tokens using wp_nonce_field or check_admin_referer in form handling code.
    Affected if Forms that process administrator-submitted data lack CSRF token validation (wp_nonce_field or check_admin_referer calls are missing)
  4. Inspect stored data for malicious scripts
    In WordPress database, query plugin-related tables (check options table for plugin settings, or any custom tables the plugin creates) for stored XSS payloads. Look for script tags, javascript:, or event handlers in stored values.
    Affected if Stored data contains unsanitized script tags or event handler attributes that could execute in admin or user contexts

A user is affected if the 'Apply with LinkedIn buttons' plugin by ivobrett is installed, the installed version is within the vulnerable range, and the plugin lacks CSRF protections on its admin forms or stores unsanitized user input.

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.

From vendor data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Update the plugin to a patched version once available, or disable the plugin until a fix is released. If immediate remediation is required, consider removing the plugin entirely; otherwise, implement proper CSRF tokens and input sanitization in the plugin code.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
14.0 hours of engineering $2,490
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-23898 — 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-2025-23898 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