CVE-2025-39419
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 David Miller Revision Diet revision-diet allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Revision Diet: from n/a through <= 1.0.1.
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 CSRF vulnerability in the Revision Diet WordPress plugin (version <= 1.0.1) allows attackers to trick authenticated administrators into executing unintended actions that result in Stored XSS. The lack of anti-CSRF tokens enables malicious requests to inject persistent scripts into the application that 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.
-
Verify Revision Diet plugin is installedNavigate to WordPress admin dashboard > Plugins > Installed Plugins and search for 'Revision Diet', or inspect the wp-content/plugins directory for a revision-diet folderAffected if The plugin appears in the list and is active
-
Check installed plugin versionView the plugin file (usually revision-diet.php) and locate the version in the plugin header comment, or check the 'Version' column in Plugins > Installed PluginsAffected if Version is 1.0.1 or lower (the vulnerable versions)
-
Inspect plugin admin pages for nonce fieldsAccess the plugin settings page under the WordPress admin menu, view the page source (right-click > View Page Source), and search for 'wp_nonce' or '_wpnonce' in the plugin's form HTMLAffected if No nonce fields are present in forms that handle settings or content modifications
-
Identify state-changing plugin actionsReview the plugin source code in revision-diet.php for functions that modify data (save, update, delete, insert operations) and check if they validate nonces before executionAffected if State-changing functions lack nonce verification (missing check_admin_referer or wp_verify_nonce calls)
-
Check for stored XSS sinks in plugin outputExamine the plugin code for output functions (echo, print) that display user-supplied data without escaping (look for lack of esc_html, esc_attr, wp_kses_post)Affected if Plugin outputs stored data without proper sanitization, enabling XSS when combined with CSRF
A user is affected if the Revision Diet plugin version is 1.0.1 or lower, is active on their WordPress site, and the plugin admin forms lack CSRF nonce protection while outputting data without sanitization.
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 WordPress nonces for all state-changing operations and apply proper output escaping/sanitization for all user-supplied data to prevent XSS. Consider adding a Content Security Policy header as defense-in-depth.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-39419 — 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-2025-39419 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