InlocationWordPress extension · Gabrieldarezzo
CVE-2025-25166
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 gabrieldarezzo InLocation inlocation allows Stored XSS.This issue affects InLocation: from n/a through <= 1.8.
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 confidenceCSRF vulnerability in gabrieldarezzo InLocation allows authenticated users to be tricked into submitting malicious requests that result in Stored XSS. An attacker could craft a malicious link or form that, when triggered by a logged-in user, stores malicious scripts in the application that execute when other users view the injected content.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
InlocationWordPress extension
<= 1.8CVSS 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
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
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.
-
Determine installed InLocation versionLocate the application's version file, header, or admin panel that displays the current version numberAffected if The installed version is 1.8 or lower
-
Identify state-changing operationsReview the application for forms or endpoints that accept and store user input (e.g., profile updates, content submission, settings changes)Affected if The application stores user-submitted data without requiring anti-CSRF tokens
-
Check for anti-CSRF token implementationInspect forms that modify data by examining the HTML source for hidden token fields or verifying token-based request validation on the server sideAffected if Forms lack anti-CSRF tokens or the server does not validate them
-
Check SameSite cookie attributesInspect session cookies using browser developer tools or by examining Set-Cookie headers for SameSite attribute configurationAffected if Cookies lack SameSite attribute or use SameSite=None without Secure flag
-
Verify output encoding on stored contentTest if user-submitted content is rendered with proper encoding by injecting a benign script tag and observing if it executes or is neutralizedAffected if Stored content renders without encoding, allowing script execution
A user is affected if they run InLocation version 1.8 or lower AND the application lacks anti-CSRF protections on state-changing operations that store content, enabling stored XSS via CSRF.
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 or SameSite cookie attributes on state-changing operations, combined with proper input validation and output encoding to prevent stored XSS execution.
Fix this in Inlocation
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 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 $4,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-25166 — 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-2025-25166 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