CVE-2025-32152
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 Essential Plugin Slider a SlidersPack sliderspack-all-in-one-image-sliders allows PHP Local File Inclusion.This issue affects Slider a SlidersPack: from n/a through <= 2.3.
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 confidenceThe sliderspack-all-in-one-image-sliders WordPress plugin <= 2.3 contains a PHP Local File Inclusion (LFI) vulnerability where user-supplied input is improperly validated before being used in include/require statements. An attacker can exploit this to include arbitrary PHP files from the server, potentially achieving remote code execution.
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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/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.
-
Confirm the sliderspack plugin is installedCheck the /wp-content/plugins/ directory for a folder named 'sliderspack-all-in-one-image-sliders' or search for 'sliderspack' in the WordPress plugins admin areaAffected if The plugin folder or entry exists in the WordPress plugins directory
-
Identify the installed plugin versionOpen the main plugin PHP file (usually sli-pack.php or similar in the plugin folder) and look for the 'Version:' header in the plugin comment block, or check the readme.txt file for the 'Stable tag:' valueAffected if The version number is 2.3 or lower (e.g., 2.3, 2.2, 2.1, 1.x)
-
Determine if the vulnerable code path is reachableSearch the plugin files for include/require statements that use variables derived from user input (e.g., $_GET, $_POST, $_REQUEST) without proper sanitization; look for patterns like 'include($_REQUEST[...])' or 'require($var)'Affected if The plugin contains dynamic include/require calls using unsanitized user-supplied parameters
-
Check web server logs for suspicious LFI patternsReview access logs (typically in /var/log/apache2/ or /var/log/nginx/) for requests containing directory traversal sequences like '../' or '..\' targeting the plugin's PHP filesAffected if Requests with '../' or '..\' patterns targeting the sliderspack plugin are present in the logs
A user is affected if the sliderspack-all-in-one-image-sliders plugin version is 2.3 or lower and the server processes requests that trigger dynamic file inclusion with unsanitized user input.
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 dataUpdate to the latest version of the plugin once available. Until then, disable the plugin or implement WAF rules to block directory traversal patterns (e.g., ../, ..\). Alternatively, restrict web server user privileges to limit impact of potential RCE.
- 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-2025-32152 — 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-2025-32152 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