CVE-2025-25106
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 FancyWP Starter Templates by FancyWP starter-templates allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Starter Templates by FancyWP: from n/a through <= 2.0.0.
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 FancyWP Starter Templates plugin allows remote attackers to trick authenticated administrators into performing unwanted actions (such as modifying plugin settings or importing malicious content) by tricking their browsers into sending crafted requests.
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.
-
Verify FancyWP Starter Templates plugin is installedNavigate to WordPress admin > Plugins, or check the plugins directory on the server for 'starter-templates' or 'fancywp-starter-templates' folderAffected if The plugin is present on the WordPress installation
-
Determine installed plugin versionCheck the plugin header comment in the main PHP file (usually wp-content/plugins/starter-templates/plugin.php or similar), or view the version in the WordPress Plugins admin pageAffected if Version is within any known affected range (compare to official FancyWP release notes)
-
Identify state-changing admin actionsReview plugin source code for functions handling settings updates, template imports, or content creation (look for $_POST, $_GET handling in admin-init or admin_post hooks)Affected if Plugin contains admin actions that modify settings or import content without requiring user confirmation
-
Verify nonce validation exists on sensitive operationsSearch plugin code for wp_verify_nonce, check_admin_referer, or nonce_field calls on all state-changing functions; examine if these validations are properly implemented before any database writes or settings changesAffected if State-changing operations lack nonce/token validation or the validation can be bypassed
-
Check SameSite cookie configurationInspect HTTP response headers from the WordPress admin area using browser dev tools or curl -I, looking for Set-Cookie headers and their SameSite attribute valuesAffected if Authentication cookies lack SameSite=Strict or SameSite=Lax attributes, allowing cross-site cookie transmission
A user is affected if the FancyWP Starter Templates plugin is installed and its admin actions (settings changes, content imports) lack proper nonce validation and SameSite cookie protections.
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 tokens (nonce validation) on all state-changing operations and configure SameSite cookie attributes to prevent cross-site request forgery attacks.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-25106 — 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-2025-25106 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