CVE-2025-49276
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 Blogmine blogmine allows PHP Local File Inclusion.This issue affects Blogmine: from n/a through <= 1.1.7.
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 · high confidenceA PHP Local File Inclusion (LFI) vulnerability exists in the Blogmine plugin where user-controlled input is used in include/require statements without proper validation, allowing attackers to read sensitive files on the server via path traversal.
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.
-
Locate Blogmine plugin filesSearch the web server document root for the Blogmine plugin directory, typically found under wp-content/plugins/blogmine or similar paths. List all PHP files within the plugin folder.Affected if The Blogmine plugin directory exists and contains PHP files on the server.
-
Find include/require statements using user inputGrep or search within Blogmine PHP files for patterns like 'include', 'require', 'include_once', 'require_once' followed by superglobal variables such as $_GET, $_POST, $_REQUEST, or $_COOKIE.Affected if The plugin contains include or require statements that directly use user-controlled input without sanitization.
-
Check for path traversal in file includesExamine the identified include/require statements for direct concatenation of user input into file paths. Look for patterns like 'include($_GET["page"])' or 'require($variable)' where the variable originates from request parameters.Affected if File path variables are built directly from request parameters without validation, allowing ../ sequences to traverse directories.
-
Verify sensitive file access is possibleTest if the LFI can be triggered by making a request with a path traversal payload (e.g., ?page=../../../../etc/passwd) to anyBlogmine plugin endpoint that processes file includes. Check server response for file contents.Affected if The server returns the contents of files outside the web root when path traversal sequences are used in plugin parameters.
-
Confirm input validation is absentReview the source code around the vulnerable include statements to determine if functions like basename(), realpath(), or whitelist validation are used to sanitize the file path before the include/require executes.Affected if No input validation using basename(), realpath(), or whitelist logic is present in the code paths handling file includes.
The environment is affected if the Blogmine plugin is installed and contains include/require statements that use unsanitized user input from request parameters, allowing path traversal to read arbitrary files.
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 strict input validation using basename() and realpath() to sanitize file paths before include/require statements, and consider whitelisting allowed files.
- 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-2025-49276 — 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-2025-49276 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