CVE-2025-39396
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 Crocoblock JetReviews jet-reviews allows PHP Local File Inclusion.This issue affects JetReviews: from n/a through <= 2.3.6.
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 confidenceThis is a PHP Local File Inclusion (LFI) vulnerability in the Crocoblock JetReviews plugin. The vulnerability allows attackers to include local PHP files on the server through improper validation of user-supplied input in include/require statements, potentially leading to arbitrary 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.
-
Verify JetReviews plugin is installedCheck for the JetReviews plugin directory in your WordPress installation at wp-content/plugins/jet-reviews/ or search for 'jet-reviews' in the wp-content/plugins/ folder.Affected if The plugin directory exists in your WordPress installation.
-
Identify the installed JetReviews versionOpen the main plugin file (usually jet-reviews.php) and locate the Version header in the plugin comment block at the top, or check the readme.txt file for the 'Stable tag' version number.Affected if The installed version is known and can be compared against fixed versions.
-
Locate vulnerable file inclusion codeSearch the jet-reviews plugin directory for PHP files containing include, require, include_once, or require_once statements that use variables without proper sanitization, particularly in files within the includes/ or templates/ subdirectories.Affected if PHP files in the plugin contain file inclusion functions using unsanitized user-supplied variables.
-
Check plugin file permissions and accessibilityVerify that the PHP files with vulnerable file inclusion code are accessible via web requests and not protected by .htaccess or other access controls in the wp-content/plugins/jet-reviews/ directory.Affected if The vulnerable PHP files are directly accessible over HTTP.
-
Confirm the plugin is active on the siteLog into the WordPress admin dashboard and navigate to Plugins > Installed Plugins, or query the wp_options table for the option_name 'active_plugins' to check if jet-reviews is in the list of active plugins.Affected if JetReviews appears in the active plugins list.
Your environment is affected if the JetReviews plugin is installed, active, and contains the vulnerable file inclusion code without having applied the vendor patch.
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 JetReviews to the latest patched version immediately. If an update is unavailable, disable the plugin and review server configuration to restrict file access.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $2,512.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-39396 — 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-2025-39396 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