CVE-2025-53247
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 wpinterface BlogMarks blogmarks allows PHP Local File Inclusion.This issue affects BlogMarks: from n/a through <= 1.0.8.
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 PHP Local File Inclusion (LFI) vulnerability in the wpinterface BlogMarks plugin. The vulnerability allows attackers to manipulate filename parameters in include/require statements to execute arbitrary PHP code from the server, potentially leading to remote code execution.
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.
-
Confirm BlogMarks plugin installationNavigate to WordPress admin dashboard > Plugins and verify if the 'wpinterface BlogMarks' plugin is installed and activeAffected if Plugin is installed and active in WordPress
-
Identify installed plugin versionIn WordPress plugins page, click on the plugin to view its details or check the plugin header in its main PHP file for the 'Version' commentAffected if Unable to determine version or version is unknown/older than patched release
-
Check for direct include/require usageInspect plugin PHP files for include(), require(), include_once(), or require_once() statements that use variables in the path argument without sanitizationAffected if File inclusion functions accept unsanitized user-supplied input
-
Inspect vulnerable parameter sourcesReview PHP code for parameters used in include/require that originate from $_GET, $_POST, or other user-controllable superglobal arrays without validationAffected if User-controllable parameters flow directly to file inclusion functions
-
Verify directory traversal potentialTest whether the plugin accepts path parameters that could traverse directories using '../' sequences to access files outside the intended directoryAffected if Path parameters allow directory traversal patterns
Environment is affected if the wpinterface BlogMarks plugin is installed and its code contains include/require statements that process unsanitized user input as file paths.
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 on all parameters used in include/require statements, use allowlists for permitted files, and upgrade to a patched version if available.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-53247 — 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-2025-53247 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