RankcheckerWordPress extension
CVE-2025-28857
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 rankchecker Rankchecker.io Integration rankchecker-io-integration allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Rankchecker.io Integration: from n/a through <= 1.0.9.
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 Rankchecker.io Integration plugin allows authenticated users to be tricked into submitting malicious requests that inject persistent JavaScript payloads (Stored XSS). An attacker can craft a malicious page that, when visited by an admin or authenticated user, causes their browser to silently submit requests that embed XSS into plugin settings or stored data.
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
RankcheckerWordPress extension
<= 1.0.9CVSS 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.
-
Confirm Rankchecker.io Integration plugin is installedCheck WordPress plugin directory or filesystem for the Rankchecker plugin filesAffected if Plugin is present in the WordPress installation
-
Identify installed plugin versionLocate the plugin version in the plugin header comment within the main PHP file or on the WordPress Plugins admin pageAffected if Version is 1.0.9 or lower (any version up to and including 1.0.9)
-
Inspect state-changing form actions for CSRF protectionExamine plugin PHP source code for forms that modify settings or database entries; look for nonce verification or CSRF token validation logic using functions like wp_verify_nonce or check_admin_refererAffected if Forms that modify plugin settings or stored data lack nonce/CSRF token validation
-
Review user input handling for output encodingSearch plugin source code for places where user-supplied data is displayed back (in admin pages, frontend output, API responses); verify proper escaping functions like esc_html, esc_attr, esc_textarea, or wp_kses are usedAffected if User-provided data is rendered without proper escaping functions
You are affected if the Rankchecker.io Integration plugin version is 1.0.9 or lower AND the plugin contains forms that lack CSRF token validation AND user input is output without proper escaping.
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 dataAdd CSRF tokens to all state-changing forms/actions and implement proper output encoding/escaping on all user-supplied data before rendering to prevent stored XSS execution.
Fix this in Rankchecker
Scoped from the published advisory
- 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-2025-28857 — 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-2025-28857 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