CVE-2025-30522
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 Damian Orzol Contact Form 7 Material Design cf7-material-design allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Contact Form 7 Material Design: from n/a through <= 1.0.0.
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 · high confidenceCSRF vulnerability in the Contact Form 7 Material Design WordPress plugin allows attackers to inject malicious scripts via stored XSS. The lack of CSRF token validation on form submissions enables authenticated users to be tricked into submitting crafted requests that persist malicious code.
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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Verify Contact Form 7 Material Design plugin is installedNavigate to WordPress admin > Plugins and check if 'Contact Form 7 Material Design' is listed, or inspect the plugin directory at wp-content/plugins/ for a folder containing 'contact-form-7-material-design' and read the main plugin file header for version informationAffected if the plugin is installed and active
-
Identify active forms using the pluginCheck WordPress database wp_posts table where post_type corresponds to the plugin's form post type, or view the plugin's form settings page in the admin panel to list all created formsAffected if any forms created with this plugin are active on the site
-
Determine if CSRF token validation is implemented on form submissionsExamine the plugin PHP source code in the form handling files (typically in the plugin root or includes folder) and look for wp_nonce_field, verify_nonce, or check_admin_referer calls when forms are processed; also check if the plugin settings include a CSRF protection optionAffected if the form submission handler lacks CSRF token verification logic or the CSRF protection setting is disabled/not present
-
Inspect stored form submissions for malicious contentAccess the WordPress database wp_posts and wp_postmeta tables to review saved entries from plugin forms, looking for suspicious script tags, iframe elements, or encoded JavaScript in submission data fields; also check the plugin's submission logs if availableAffected if stored XSS payloads exist in form submission records indicating exploitation
A user is affected if the Contact Form 7 Material Design plugin is installed with active forms and the plugin's form submission handler does not validate CSRF tokens, allowing potential stored XSS injection via crafted requests.
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 on all form submissions and update to the latest patched version when available. Review existing form submissions for malicious content.
- 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-2025-30522 — 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-2025-30522 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