CVE-2025-25111
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 WP Spell Check WP Spell Check wp-spell-check allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects WP Spell Check: from n/a through <= 9.21.
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 WP Spell Check WordPress plugin (versions up to 9.21). Attackers can exploit this to trick authenticated administrators into performing unintended actions by诱导 them to visit malicious pages while logged in. The vulnerability stems from missing or improper anti-CSRF token validation on plugin forms and/or AJAX endpoints.
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
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Verify the installed WP Spell Check plugin versionLog into the WordPress admin dashboard, navigate to Plugins > Installed Plugins, locate the WP Spell Check plugin, and read the version number displayed beneath the plugin nameAffected if The installed version is 9.21 or lower (any version up to and including 9.21)
-
Locate plugin PHP files that handle form submissionsAccess the server filesystem (via FTP, file manager, or SSH) and navigate to wp-content/plugins/wp-spell-check/ - examine PHP files that contain form handlers, specifically looking for files with 'admin', 'options', 'settings', or 'form' in their namesAffected if The plugin processes admin-level actions through PHP files without nonce validation logic
-
Inspect PHP files for missing nonce validationSearch the plugin PHP files for patterns indicating CSRF protection: look for the presence of 'wp_verify_nonce', 'check_admin_referer', 'check_ajax_referer', or 'nonce' variables. Use grep or a text editor to scan multiple filesAffected if State-changing operations (save, update, delete, submit) lack nonce verification calls or have these calls commented out
-
Check AJAX endpoint handlers for CSRF protectionExamine PHP files in the plugin that register AJAX actions using 'add_action("wp_ajax_...' or 'add_action("wp_ajax_nopriv_...' - verify whether each handler calls a nonce verification function before processing the requestAffected if AJAX endpoints that modify data do not validate nonces before executing state-changing operations
A defender is affected if the WP Spell Check plugin version is 9.21 or lower AND the plugin forms or AJAX endpoints lack proper nonce token validation on operations that change data or settings.
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 in the plugin. Update to a patched version when available and ensure administrators are aware of phishing risks.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-25111 — 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-2025-25111 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