CVE-2025-30587
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 shawfactor LH OGP Meta lh-ogp-meta-tags allows Stored XSS.This issue affects LH OGP Meta: from n/a through <= 1.73.
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 confidenceA CSRF vulnerability in the LH OGP Meta plugin (versions <=1.73) allows authenticated administrators to be tricked into submitting malicious requests that inject persistent JavaScript payloads (Stored XSS) into meta tags. The plugin lacks proper nonce validation on its settings forms and AJAX endpoints, enabling attackers to craft malicious pages that trigger unintended plugin configuration changes when visited by logged-in administrators.
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.
-
Locate the LH OGP Meta pluginCheck the wp-content/plugins/ directory for a folder named 'lh-ogp-meta' or similar, and examine the main plugin file header for the version number (e.g., in plugin.php or lh-ogp-meta.php)Affected if The plugin folder exists and the version header shows 1.73 or lower
-
Verify the installed version against affected rangeRead the 'Version:' field from the plugin header comment and compare numerically to 1.73Affected if The installed version is 1.73 or any version number lower than 1.73
-
Confirm the plugin is activeIn the WordPress admin dashboard, navigate to Plugins > Installed Plugins and check if LH OGP Meta is activatedAffected if The plugin shows as 'Active' in the WordPress plugin list
-
Inspect settings forms for nonce implementationExamine the plugin PHP files for form handling (settings pages, options pages) and search for wp_create_nonce, check_admin_referer, or wp_nonce_field functionsAffected if No nonce-related functions are found in form processing code, or nonce verification is missing entirely
-
Inspect AJAX handlers for nonce verificationSearch plugin PHP files for add_action('wp_ajax_') and add_action('wp_ajax_nopriv_') hooks, then check if these handlers verify nonces before processing inputAffected if AJAX endpoints exist but lack nonce verification checks before storing user input
The environment is affected if the LH OGP Meta plugin is installed, active, and running version 1.73 or lower with missing nonce validation on its settings forms and AJAX endpoints.
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 WordPress nonces (wp_create_nonce, check_admin_referer) on all form submissions and AJAX actions, and validate the nonce before processing any user input that could be stored as meta tag content.
- 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-2025-30587 — 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-2025-30587 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