Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)Weakness · CWE-352

CVE-2025-28964

HIGH · 7.1 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-06-06
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
78/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges

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 · unedited
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in mangup Personal Favicon personal-favicon allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Personal Favicon: from n/a through <= 2.0.

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 confidence

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the Personal Favicon WordPress plugin enables attackers to trick authenticated administrators into submitting malicious requests. The vulnerability allows injection of arbitrary JavaScript (Stored XSS) through crafted favicon settings, as the plugin lacks proper CSRF protection on its configuration endpoints.

MitigationImplement anti-CSRF tokens (nonces) on all form submissions and AJAX endpoints within the plugin, and validate the nonce on the server side before processing any favicon configuration changes.

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
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
Low

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Confirm Personal Favicon plugin is installed
    In WordPress admin, go to Plugins > Installed Plugins and look for 'Personal Favicon' or check the plugin files in /wp-content/plugins/ for a folder named 'personal-favicon' or similar. Read the main plugin PHP file to find the declared version in the plugin header.
    Affected if The plugin is installed and active
  2. Identify the installed plugin version
    Read the main plugin file (usually personal-favicon.php or similar) in /wp-content/plugins/ and locate the 'Version:' field in the plugin header comment.
    Affected if Version is unknown or falls within a range that lacks CSRF protection (compare to any known fixed version if available)
  3. Locate the favicon configuration endpoints
    Examine the plugin source code for form handlers that process favicon settings. Look for files containing 'favicon', 'settings', or 'options' in function names. Check for admin_menu or add_settings_section hooks that register configuration pages.
    Affected if The plugin has configuration endpoints that handle favicon settings submissions
  4. Inspect form submissions for CSRF protection tokens
    Examine the PHP files that render the favicon settings forms. Look for calls to wp_nonce_field, wp_nonce_url, or check_admin_referer functions within the form rendering code.
    Affected if Forms processing favicon settings lack nonce/token generation calls or the nonce field is missing from the HTML output
  5. Verify server-side nonce validation on submitted settings
    Review the PHP handler that processes the favicon configuration POST/GET requests. Look for verify_nonce, check_admin_referer, or wp_verify_nonce calls before any settings are saved or processed.
    Affected if The settings processing code does not validate CSRF tokens before accepting and storing favicon configuration data

If the Personal Favicon plugin is active and its favicon settings forms lack CSRF tokens with server-side validation, the environment is vulnerable to CVE-2025-28964.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement anti-CSRF tokens (nonces) on all form submissions and AJAX endpoints within the plugin, and validate the nonce on the server side before processing any favicon configuration changes.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
13.0 hours of engineering $2,290
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,664.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-28964 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-28964 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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