CVE-2025-49275
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 unfoldwp Blogbyte blogbyte allows PHP Local File Inclusion.This issue affects Blogbyte: from n/a through <= 1.1.1.
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 confidenceThe unfoldwp Blogbyte plugin through version 1.1.1 contains a PHP Local File Inclusion (LFI) vulnerability where user-supplied input is improperly validated before being used in include/require statements. An attacker could potentially include malicious PHP files from the server filesystem, leading to 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/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.
-
Confirm Blogbyte plugin installation and versionNavigate to WordPress admin dashboard > Plugins > Installed Plugins and locate 'Blogbyte' by unfoldwp, or inspect the plugin header file (usually blogbyte.php) for the 'Version' comment to determine the installed versionAffected if The plugin is installed and the version is 1.1.1 or lower
-
Identify file inclusion endpointsSearch the plugin directory (wp-content/plugins/blogbyte/) for PHP files containing include, require, include_once, or require_once statements that use variables (e.g., include($var), require($_GET['param'])) without proper validationAffected if Any PHP file in the plugin uses dynamic file inclusion with unsanitized user input from $_GET, $_POST, or $_REQUEST superglobals
-
Check for vulnerable parameter exposureReview all plugin PHP files for parameters that accept file paths or names (e.g., 'file', 'template', 'path', 'page', 'include') and verify whether these parameters are validated before being used in include/require statementsAffected if The plugin exposes a parameter that accepts user-controlled input and passes it directly to a file inclusion function without validation or sanitization (e.g., no realpath(), basename(), or whitelist checks)
-
Audit input validation in inclusion functionsExamine the code logic around each include/require statement to determine if directory traversal protection exists (such as checks for '../', '..\', or absolute paths) and whether the input is restricted to a whitelist of allowed files or directoriesAffected if The code lacks proper input validation (no basename(), no whitelist, no path traversal restrictions) before performing the file inclusion
You are affected if the Blogbyte plugin version is 1.1.1 or lower AND the plugin exposes an endpoint where user-supplied input is used in include/require statements without validation.
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 to a patched version if available; otherwise disable the plugin. Implement strict input validation and whitelist-based filtering on all file inclusion parameters, and consider deploying a WAF rule to block directory traversal patterns as a temporary mitigation.
- 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-2025-49275 — 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-2025-49275 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