CVE-2025-49281
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 Magways magways allows PHP Local File Inclusion.This issue affects Magways: from n/a through <= 1.2.1.
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 confidenceThis is a Local File Inclusion (LFI) vulnerability in the Magways WordPress plugin where improper control of filenames used in PHP include/require statements allows attackers to read sensitive files on the server. The lack of input validation on file paths enables directory traversal attacks.
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 the Magways plugin versionIn WordPress admin, go to Plugins > Installed Plugins > look for Magways and note the version number. Alternatively, check the main plugin file (typically /wp-content/plugins/magways/{magways}.php) for the 'Version' header in the plugin comment block.Affected if The installed version is unknown or falls within the affected range (if such a range is defined by the vendor).
-
Identify vulnerable include/require usageExamine PHP source files in the plugin directory for include(), require(), include_once(), or require_once() statements that use variables for file paths without validation. Search for patterns like 'include($' or 'require($_' in plugin PHP files.Affected if The plugin contains include/require statements that accept user-supplied file paths without sanitization.
-
Locate the affected HTTP endpointIdentify which WordPress AJAX action or page route handles the file inclusion. Check admin-ajax.php, plugin settings pages, or AJAX handlers that accept a 'file', 'path', or similar parameter used in include/require calls.Affected if An endpoint exists that accepts a file path parameter and passes it to an include/require statement without validation.
-
Verify directory traversal is possibleIf an endpoint is identified, test by sending a request with a path containing '../' sequences (for example, ?file=../../wp-config.php) to see if sensitive files can be accessed. Inspect the response for file contents.Affected if The application returns the contents of files outside the intended directory, confirming the LFI vulnerability.
You are affected if the Magways plugin is installed, uses vulnerable include/require statements with unsanitized user input, and the vulnerable endpoint is accessible, allowing directory 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 and allowlisting for file paths used in include/require statements, ensuring only whitelisted files can be included and preventing directory traversal sequences.
- 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-2025-49281 — 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-2025-49281 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