dbcve.org
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)Weakness · CWE-352

CVE-2025-39440

HIGH · 7.1 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-04-17
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
78/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges

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 · unedited
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Rajesh Broken Links Remover broken-links-remover allows Stored XSS.This issue affects Broken Links Remover: from n/a through <= 1.2.2.

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 confidence

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the Rajesh Broken Links Remover WordPress plugin allows authenticated administrators to be tricked into storing malicious JavaScript code via forged requests. The lack of proper CSRF protection on state-changing operations enables attackers to inject XSS payloads that persist in the plugin's database and execute when other users view affected pages.

MitigationImplement wp_nonce verification on all form submissions and AJAX actions, sanitize all user-supplied input before storage using functions like sanitize_text_field(), and apply esc_html() or esc_js() when outputting stored data to prevent XSS 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
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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Verify the Rajesh Broken Links Remover plugin is installed
    Navigate to WordPress admin > Plugins and confirm 'Rajesh Broken Links Remover' appears in the installed plugins list, or check for the plugin folder at /wp-content/plugins/ in the filesystem
    Affected if the plugin is installed and active - the vulnerability exists in this plugin code regardless of version since no specific safe version was identified
  2. Check the installed plugin version
    In WordPress admin > Plugins, click on the plugin name to view its version number, or read the main plugin PHP file header for the 'Version' tag
    Affected if the installed version cannot be compared to a fixed patched version (no safe version range was published)
  3. Inspect plugin PHP files for missing wp_nonce verification
    Examine the main plugin file(s) for form submissions and AJAX actions; search for the absence of wp_verify_nonce(), check_admin_referer(), or wp_nonce_field() calls before processing state-changing operations
    Affected if form submissions and AJAX handlers lack nonce verification - this confirms the CSRF vulnerability is present
  4. Inspect plugin PHP files for missing input sanitization
    Search plugin code for functions that store user input (such as update_option, add_post_meta, or direct database inserts) and verify whether sanitize_text_field(), sanitize_email(), or similar sanitization functions are used on the input before storage
    Affected if user-supplied input is stored without sanitization functions - this confirms the XSS component exists
  5. Examine the WordPress database for suspicious stored content
    Query the wp_options table or any custom plugin tables for XSS payloads (look for <script>, <img onerror=, javascript:, or event handlers like onload/onerror) that may have been injected via forged admin requests
    Affected if malicious JavaScript or HTML payloads are found stored in the database - this confirms exploitation has occurred

The environment is affected if the Rajesh Broken Links Remover plugin is installed and its code lacks wp_nonce verification on state-changing operations combined with missing input sanitization before storing data.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement wp_nonce verification on all form submissions and AJAX actions, sanitize all user-supplied input before storage using functions like sanitize_text_field(), and apply esc_html() or esc_js() when outputting stored data to prevent XSS execution.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
9.0 hours of engineering $1,600
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-39440 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-39440 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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