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

CVE-2025-48083

HIGH · 7.1 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-11-06
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 andriassundskard wpNamedUsers wpnamedusers allows Stored XSS.This issue affects wpNamedUsers: from n/a through <= 0.5.

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

CSRF vulnerability in wpNamedUsers WordPress plugin (version <= 0.5) enables attackers to inject malicious JavaScript through stored XSS by tricking authenticated administrators into triggering crafted requests. The attack chains CSRF to achieve persistent script injection.

MitigationUpdate wpNamedUsers to the latest version; implement anti-CSRF tokens on all plugin forms and ensure proper input sanitization and output encoding.

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. Identify if wpNamedUsers plugin is installed
    Navigate to WordPress admin dashboard > Plugins > Installed Plugins, or inspect the /wp-content/plugins/ directory for a folder named 'wpnamedusers' or similar
    Affected if The wpNamedUsers plugin is present in the WordPress installation
  2. Determine the installed version of wpNamedUsers
    In WordPress admin > Plugins > Installed Plugins, locate wpNamedUsers and read the version number from the plugin details. Alternatively, check the main plugin PHP file (e.g., wpnamedusers.php) for the 'Version' header in the plugin comment block
    Affected if The version number is 0.5 or lower, or if no version is displayed (indicating an unversioned copy of the legacy plugin)
  3. Verify if the plugin is active
    In WordPress admin > Plugins > Installed Plugins, check the status indicator for wpNamedUsers. An active plugin will show 'Active' under the plugin name
    Affected if The plugin is active and version is <= 0.5
  4. Inspect for suspicious user metadata or stored scripts
    Query the WordPress usermeta table for entries containing script tags, iframe tags, or on* event handlers (e.g., onload, onerror). Use phpMyAdmin or WP-CLI: wp db query "SELECT * FROM wp_usermeta WHERE meta_value LIKE '%<script%' OR meta_value LIKE '%onerror=%'"
    Affected if Any user meta entries contain unsanitized JavaScript or HTML tags that could indicate exploitation of the stored XSS
  5. Review plugin-generated database entries for malicious content
    Check the wp_options table and any custom tables created by the plugin for stored XSS payloads. Search for patterns like <script, javascript:, or encoded variations. Use WP-CLI or database access to inspect recent entries
    Affected if Recent database entries contain JavaScript injection attempts or suspicious content that bypasses sanitization

A user is affected if the wpNamedUsers plugin is installed with version 0.5 or lower and is active, or if evidence of stored XSS payloads exists in the WordPress database.

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

Update wpNamedUsers to the latest version; implement anti-CSRF tokens on all plugin forms and ensure proper input sanitization and output encoding.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
11.0 hours of engineering $1,930
Get help mitigating

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-48083 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-48083 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