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

CVE-2025-47684

MEDIUM · 5.4 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-05-07
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
61/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
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 Smaily Smaily for WP smaily-for-wp allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Smaily for WP: from n/a through <= 3.1.7.

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 confidence

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the Smaily for WP WordPress plugin allows attackers to induce authenticated administrators to perform unintended actions. The plugin lacks proper anti-CSRF token validation on state-changing operations, enabling malicious requests to be crafted and executed via social engineering or embedded links.

MitigationImplement anti-CSRF tokens (nonces) on all forms and AJAX actions that perform state-changing operations, and validate Origin/Referer headers to ensure requests originate from legitimate sources.

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
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
Low
Availability
Low

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/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 Smaily for WP plugin is installed
    In WordPress admin, go to Plugins > Installed Plugins and look for 'Smaily for WP' or 'Smaily' in the list. Alternatively, check the /wp-content/plugins/ directory for a folder named 'smaily-for-wp' or similar.
    Affected if The plugin is not installed or not present on the system.
  2. Check installed plugin version
    In WordPress admin Plugins list, find Smaily for WP and note the version number displayed under the plugin name. Alternatively, open the main plugin file (usually smaily-for-wp.php) and look for the 'Version' header in the plugin comments.
    Affected if The installed version matches any version known to be affected by CVE-2025-47684 (compare against publicly available CVE data).
  3. Identify active admin users capable of triggering state-changing operations
    Navigate to Users > All Users in WordPress admin. Identify users with Administrator role who have access to Smaily plugin settings under Settings > Smaily or a dedicated Smaily admin menu.
    Affected if There exist administrators or users with privileges to access and modify Smaily plugin settings.
  4. Check for state-changing operations in Smaily settings
    Access the Smaily plugin settings pages (typically under Settings > Smaily). Look for any forms or options that perform actions like: syncing subscribers, updating configuration, sending test emails, or modifying automation rules.
    Affected if Any state-changing forms or AJAX actions are present and accessible to administrators without visible nonce/token validation.
  5. Inspect form submissions for anti-CSRF tokens
    View the HTML source of Smaily admin pages (right-click > View Page Source). Search for forms within the Smaily plugin pages. Check if each form contains an input field with a name like 'wpnonce', '_wpnonce', 'nonce', or similar token field.
    Affected if Forms performing state-changing operations lack nonce token fields or the nonce validation is missing from the form handler code.

You are affected if the Smaily for WP plugin is installed, the version matches the vulnerable range, and administrators can access state-changing operations that lack CSRF token validation.

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 anti-CSRF tokens (nonces) on all forms and AJAX actions that perform state-changing operations, and validate Origin/Referer headers to ensure requests originate from legitimate sources.

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-2025-47684 — 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-2025-47684 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