CVE-2025-31617
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 Gagan Deep Singh PostmarkApp Email Integrator postmarkapp-email-integrator allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects PostmarkApp Email Integrator: from n/a through <= 2.4.
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 PostmarkApp Email Integrator WordPress plugin (versions up to 2.4). The vulnerability allows attackers to trick authenticated users into performing unintended actions (such as modifying email integration settings) by crafting malicious requests that the user's browser automatically submits due to missing or insufficient CSRF protection mechanisms.
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.
-
Confirm PostmarkApp Email Integrator plugin is installedNavigate to WordPress admin > Plugins and look for 'PostmarkApp Email Integrator' in the installed plugins list, or check for the plugin directory at /wp-content/plugins/Affected if The plugin is installed and active
-
Check installed plugin versionIn WordPress admin > Plugins, click on the plugin to view details and find the version number, or inspect the plugin header in its main PHP fileAffected if Version is 2.4 or lower (the vulnerability affects versions up to and including 2.4)
-
Locate the plugin settings admin pageFind the admin menu entry for Postmark (typically under Settings or the plugin's own menu) where email integration settings can be modifiedAffected if A settings/admin page exists where email integration options can be changed
-
Inspect form for anti-CSRF token (nonce)View the HTML source of the plugin settings form and search for a hidden input field with a name containing 'nonce' or 'wpnonce' (e.g., wpnonce, _wpnonce, _wpnonce=)Affected if No nonce field is found in the form HTML source
-
Check if SameSite attribute is set on session cookiesUsing browser DevTools > Application > Cookies, inspect the WordPress session cookie and verify if the SameSite attribute is set (any value: Strict, Lax, or None with Secure)Affected if SameSite attribute is missing or not set on the WordPress authentication cookies
A user is affected if the PostmarkApp Email Integrator plugin (versions 2.4 or below) is installed and its settings form lacks anti-CSRF nonce protection.
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 (nonces) on all state-changing forms and validate them server-side. Additionally, verify Origin/Referer headers and consider setting SameSite attribute on session cookies to prevent cross-site cookie submission.
- Consultation2.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-31617 — 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-2025-31617 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