CVE-2025-49921
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 Crocoblock JetReviews jet-reviews allows PHP Local File Inclusion.This issue affects JetReviews: from n/a through <= 3.0.0.
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 PHP Local File Inclusion (LFI) vulnerability in the Crocoblock JetReviews WordPress plugin. The plugin fails to properly validate or sanitize user-supplied input used in include/require statements, allowing attackers to potentially include arbitrary local PHP files. With a CVSS score of 7.5 (HIGH), this is a serious code execution risk.
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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/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 JetReviews plugin installationNavigate to WordPress Admin > Plugins and confirm JetReviews by Crocoblock is installed. Alternatively, check for the plugin directory at wp-content/plugins/jet-reviews/Affected if Plugin is not installed
-
Check installed JetReviews versionIn WordPress Admin > Plugins, click on JetReviews to view the version number. Alternatively, inspect the main plugin file (e.g., jet-reviews.php) or readme.txt for the Version: headerAffected if Version is within the affected range when that range becomes publicly known
-
Confirm plugin is activeIn WordPress Admin > Plugins, verify the JetReviews plugin status shows as 'Active'Affected if Plugin is active and a vulnerable version is in use
-
Identify accessible plugin endpointsReview web server access logs for requests to JetReviews plugin files, particularly any PHP files that handle include/require operations (check wp-content/plugins/jet-reviews/ for files that accept user input in include/require statements)Affected if Exploitation attempts or suspicious patterns are present in logs
-
Inspect for unexpected file inclusionsSearch plugin PHP files for include, require, include_once, or require_once statements that use unsanitized variables (e.g., include($var), require($_GET['file']))Affected if Such patterns exist in the plugin code
Your environment is affected if the JetReviews plugin is installed, active, and running a version within the affected range that contains the LFI vulnerability in its include/require handling.
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 dataApply the vendor patch immediately if available; otherwise, disable the JetReviews plugin until a fix is released. Consider deploying a WAF rule to block directory traversal patterns in the interim.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-49921 — 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-2025-49921 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