CVE-2025-31382
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 theode Language Field language-field allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Language Field: from n/a through <= 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 Language Field plugin (versions <= 0.9) allows remote attackers to inject malicious scripts via Stored XSS. By tricking an authenticated administrator into visiting a crafted page, attackers can force the browser to send requests that store malicious JavaScript payloads in language field content.
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.
-
Identify Language Field plugin versionLocate the plugin's version file or metadata (commonly found in plugin header comments, version.php, or package.json). For WordPress plugins, check the main plugin file header. For other CMS, check the plugin's installed package metadata.Affected if Installed version is 0.9 or lower (any version up to and including 0.9)
-
Verify administrator authentication is requiredConfirm that the language field content management interface requires an authenticated administrator session. Check if unauthenticated or lower-privileged users can access language field editing features.Affected if The plugin allows authenticated administrators to modify language field content without additional authorization checks beyond session authentication
-
Inspect language field storage mechanismExamine the form handling code that processes language field content submissions. Look for how language field data is saved to the database and whether output escaping is applied when content is rendered.Affected if Language field content is stored without sanitization and later rendered without proper encoding, allowing stored XSS
-
Check for CSRF token implementation on state-changing formsReview the forms that accept language field content for the presence of CSRF tokens. Verify that server-side code validates the token before processing any language field content updates.Affected if Forms that save language field content lack CSRF token validation, or tokens are not verified server-side before storing data
A user is affected if the Language Field plugin version is 0.9 or lower and the plugin's language field content forms lack CSRF token protection, allowing stored XSS to be injected via forged requests from an authenticated administrator's browser.
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 CSRF tokens (synchronizer token pattern) on all state-changing forms and validate the Origin/Referer header on server-side to prevent forged requests from storing XSS payloads.
- 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-2025-31382 — 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-2025-31382 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