CVE-2025-25109
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 · uneditedImproper Control of Filename for Include/Require Statement in PHP Program ('PHP Remote File Inclusion') vulnerability in JoomSky WP Vehicle Manager js-vehicle-manager allows PHP Local File Inclusion.This issue affects WP Vehicle Manager: from n/a through <= 3.1.
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 confidenceThis is a PHP Local File Inclusion (LFI) vulnerability in the JoomSky WP Vehicle Manager WordPress plugin (js-vehicle-manager). The vulnerability allows attackers to include arbitrary local files from the server, potentially leading to sensitive data disclosure or remote code execution. The issue affects all versions through 3.1 and stems from improper control of filenames in include/require statements.
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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/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 plugin installationCheck if the js-vehicle-manager plugin is installed on the WordPress site by inspecting the wp-content/plugins directory or viewing the installed plugins in WordPress admin under Plugins > Installed Plugins.Affected if The plugin js-vehicle-manager is present in the WordPress installation.
-
Identify installed versionLocate the main plugin file (typically js-vehicle-manager.php) and read the version header comment, or check the plugin version displayed in the WordPress admin plugins list.Affected if The installed version is 3.1 or any version lower (the vulnerability affects all versions through 3.1).
-
Verify vulnerable file inclusion codeIf possible, inspect the plugin source code for include/require statements that use unsanitized input from user-supplied parameters (commonly $_GET, $_POST, or similar), which would allow path traversal.Affected if The plugin contains include/require statements using unsanitized request parameters without proper path validation.
-
Check web server logs for exploitation indicatorsReview server access logs (Apache/Nginx) for requests to the plugin endpoints that include path traversal sequences such as ../ or absolute file paths in query parameters.Affected if Suspicious requests with path traversal patterns targeting the vehicle-manager plugin are found in the logs.
A WordPress site is affected if it has the js-vehicle-manager plugin installed with version 3.1 or lower, and the vulnerable file inclusion code path is reachable without authentication.
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 WP Vehicle Manager to the patched version immediately. If no patched version is available, disable the plugin until a fix is released. Review server logs for any exploitation attempts and consider restricting file inclusion paths in PHP configuration as a defense-in-depth measure.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-25109 — 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-2025-25109 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