CVE-2025-52795
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 · uneditedCross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in aharonyan WP Front User Submit / Front Editor front-editor allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects WP Front User Submit / Front Editor: from n/a through <= 5.0.6.
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 confidenceCross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the WordPress plugin 'WP Front User Submit / Front Editor' (front-editor). The plugin fails to properly validate anti-CSRF tokens (nonces) on form submissions and AJAX actions, allowing attackers to trick authenticated administrators into unknowingly executing unintended actions such as modifying plugin settings, creating/editing content, or other privileged operations.
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
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/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 plugin installationNavigate to WordPress Admin > Plugins and look for 'WP Front User Submit / Front Editor' or 'front-editor' in the installed plugins listAffected if The plugin is installed and active
-
Check installed plugin versionClick on the plugin in the Plugins list to view its details, or inspect the plugin header in /wp-content/plugins/front-editor/ or /wp-content/plugins/wp-front-user-submit/ for the 'Version' fieldAffected if The installed version matches the affected version range (compare your version to the plugin's official changelog for when the vulnerability was addressed)
-
Inspect plugin for nonce validationReview the plugin's PHP files (especially those handling form submissions and AJAX actions) for the presence of wp_verify_nonce, check_admin_referer, or wp_create_nonce function calls on form processing endpointsAffected if Form handlers and AJAX endpoints lack nonce validation checks (wp_verify_nonce or check_admin_referer)
You are affected if the WP Front User Submit / Front Editor plugin is installed and active, and its version lacks proper nonce validation on form submissions and AJAX actions.
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 anti-CSRF token (nonce) validation on all form submissions and AJAX endpoints within the plugin; add proper origin/referer header validation; update to the latest patched version when available.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-52795 — 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-2025-52795 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