CVE-2025-31632
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 · uneditedImproper Control of Filename for Include/Require Statement in PHP Program ('PHP Remote File Inclusion') vulnerability in SpyroPress La Boom allows PHP Local File Inclusion. This issue affects La Boom: from n/a through 2.7.
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 confidenceA PHP Local File Inclusion (LFI) vulnerability in SpyroPress La Boom allows attackers to include arbitrary local files via improper control of filename parameters in include/require statements. This can lead to sensitive file disclosure and potentially remote code execution if attacker-controlled files exist on the system.
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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 if La Boom theme is installedLocate the La Boom theme directory in your WordPress installation, typically under wp-content/themes/la-boom or similarAffected if The La Boom theme directory exists on the server
-
Determine the installed La Boom versionCheck the theme style.css header or functions.php for a Version: field, or look for a version define statementAffected if The version number is lower than any patched version released after the CVE publication date
-
Examine theme files for file inclusion functionsSearch theme PHP files (especially in include/ or require/ subdirectories) for patterns like include($_..., require($_..., include_once($_..., require_once($_...Affected if File inclusion functions (include/require) are present and accept variables from user input ( $_GET, $_POST, $_REQUEST ) without sanitization
-
Identify the vulnerable include/require parametersReview the code around include/require statements to determine if the filename parameter is directly derived from user-controlled input without validation via basename(), realpath(), or allowlist checksAffected if The filename parameter in include/require statements uses raw user input without proper path validation or sanitization
-
Check for accessible sensitive filesVerify if common sensitive files (wp-config.php, .env, /etc/passwd) are readable by the web server process and could be included via the vulnerabilityAffected if The web server has read access to sensitive files that could be disclosed through the LFI vulnerability
Your environment is affected if the La Boom theme is installed and contains file inclusion code that uses unsanitized user input in include/require statements, allowing arbitrary local file access.
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 dataUpgrade to a patched version of La Boom that properly validates and sanitizes file inclusion paths, or implement input validation using allowlists and path normalization (basename/realpath) to restrict which files can be included.
- 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-2025-31632 — 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-2025-31632 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