CVE-2025-39374
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 aseem1234 Best Posts Summary best-posts-summary allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Best Posts Summary: from n/a through <= 1.0.
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 confidenceCSRF vulnerability in the best-posts-summary WordPress plugin allows authenticated attackers to inject malicious scripts via Stored XSS. The lack of CSRF protection enables attackers to trick administrators into performing unintended actions that store malicious payloads, which then execute when other users view the affected 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 if best-posts-summary plugin is installedIn WordPress admin, go to Plugins > Installed Plugins and look for 'best-posts-summary', or check the /wp-content/plugins/ directory for a folder named 'best-posts-summary' or similarAffected if The plugin is not installed on the WordPress site
-
Determine the installed plugin versionIn WordPress admin, click on the plugin from the Plugins list and view the version number displayed, or open the main plugin PHP file and look for the Version header in the plugin commentsAffected if The version cannot be determined or is earlier than the fixed release
-
Verify if admin actions lack CSRF protectionInspect the plugin source code for state-changing admin actions (POST/GET requests) and check if they include nonce validation tokens using wp_verify_nonce or check_admin_refererAffected if State-changing admin operations do not validate nonces or use anti-CSRF tokens
-
Check if user input is stored without sanitizationReview plugin code that saves user-generated content (post meta, options, custom tables) and verify if input is sanitized using functions like sanitize_text_field, esc_html, or esc_attr before storageAffected if User input is stored without proper sanitization functions
-
Inspect output encoding for stored contentReview plugin code that outputs stored data to users (shortcodes, widgets, admin pages) and verify if output uses encoding functions like esc_html, esc_attr, or esc_textareaAffected if Stored content is output without proper encoding functions allowing XSS execution
A user is affected if the best-posts-summary plugin is installed, admin actions lack nonce/CSRF validation, and user-supplied data is stored or output without sanitization and encoding.
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 and proper nonce validation on all state-changing operations, combined with robust input validation and output encoding to prevent stored XSS.
- 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-2025-39374 — 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-2025-39374 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