CVE-2025-25101
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 · uneditedCross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in MetricThemes Munk Sites munk-sites allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Munk Sites: from n/a through <= 1.0.7.
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 confidenceCross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the Munk Sites WordPress theme allows attackers to trick authenticated administrators into unknowingly submitting malicious requests to the application, potentially leading to unauthorized configuration changes or data manipulation.
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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
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.
-
Confirm Munk Sites theme is installedIn WordPress admin, go to Appearance > Themes to verify the Munk Sites theme is active or installed. Alternatively, check the theme directory at wp-content/themes/munk/ for the style.css file.Affected if The Munk Sites theme is installed and active on the WordPress site.
-
Identify the installed versionOpen wp-content/themes/munk/style.css and locate the 'Version:' declaration in the file header. Alternatively, check the theme in WordPress admin under Appearance > Themes > Theme Details.Affected if The version number cannot be verified or is below any version that includes CSRF protection.
-
Inspect admin action handlers for nonce verificationExamine theme PHP files in wp-content/themes/munk/ that handle admin form submissions (commonly in functions.php, includes/admin/, or similar directories). Search for form processing code that saves settings or modifies configuration, then verify if wp_verify_nonce() or check_admin_referer() is called before processing.Affected if State-changing admin operations lack nonce verification and do not validate the Origin or Referer header.
-
Review theme options/settings filesLocate files that handle theme options or settings (look for files named options.php, settings.php, or similar). Open these files and check if forms outputting these settings include nonce fields via wp_nonce_field() and validate them on submission.Affected if Settings forms are missing nonce token fields or do not validate tokens on submission.
You are affected if the Munk Sites theme is installed and its admin action handlers lack proper nonce verification for state-changing operations.
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 dataImplement anti-CSRF nonce tokens for all state-changing operations and validate Origin/Referer HTTP headers to ensure requests originate from legitimate sources.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-25101 — 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-2025-25101 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