CVE-2025-49892
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 uxper Uxper Booking uxper-booking allows PHP Local File Inclusion.This issue affects Uxper Booking: from n/a through <= 1.3.3.
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 confidenceThis is a Local File Inclusion (LFI) vulnerability in the uxper Uxper Booking WordPress plugin (uxper-booking up to version 1.3.3). The vulnerability stems from improper control of filenames in PHP include/require statements, allowing attackers to manipulate path parameters to read sensitive local files on the server such as configuration files, credentials, or system files.
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.
-
Verify if uxper-booking plugin is installedIn WordPress admin, go to Plugins > Installed Plugins and look for 'Uxper Booking' or 'uxper-booking'. Alternatively, check the /wp-content/plugins/ directory for a folder named 'uxper-booking' or 'uxper-booking'.Affected if The plugin is present in the WordPress installation
-
Check the installed plugin versionIn WordPress admin, click on the plugin name in the Plugins list to view details, or inspect the plugin's main PHP file header for 'Version:' comment. Compare against affected versions <= 1.3.3.Affected if The installed version is 1.3.3 or lower
-
Identify vulnerable file inclusion pointsExamine plugin source code in the plugin directory for PHP include/require statements that use variables from request parameters (e.g., $_GET, $_POST) without sanitization. Look for patterns like 'include($_GET["page"])' or similar dynamic file inclusion.Affected if The plugin contains file inclusion logic that uses unsanitized user input
-
Confirm the path traversal parameter is accessibleReview the plugin's PHP files to identify which parameters control file inclusion paths. Test if these parameters accept directory traversal sequences like '../' or absolute paths to sensitive files such as '/etc/passwd' or '../../wp-config.php'.Affected if The vulnerable parameter accepts path traversal input and is not protected by authentication or validation
A user is affected if the uxper-booking plugin version is 1.3.3 or lower AND the plugin contains file inclusion code that uses unsanitized user-supplied parameters, making local file read possible via path traversal.
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 dataFix requires implementing strict input validation on all file inclusion paths, using allowlist-based validation with basename() and realpath() to prevent directory traversal, and ensuring user-supplied parameters cannot be used directly in include/require statements.
- 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-2025-49892 — 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-2025-49892 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