CVE-2025-53440
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 Axiomthemes Confidant allows PHP Local File Inclusion. This issue affects Confidant: from n/a through 1.4.
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 Confidant WordPress theme by Axiomthemes. The vulnerability allows attackers to include arbitrary PHP files from the server through improper validation of user-supplied input in include/require statements. This can lead to disclosure of sensitive files, code execution, or denial of service.
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.
-
Check Confidant theme versionLocate the theme's style.css file (typically in /wp-content/themes/confidant/) and look for the 'Version:' header in the CSS comment block at the topAffected if The version listed is 1.4 or any earlier version (versions through 1.4 are affected)
-
Identify file inclusion codeSearch the theme's PHP files for include, include_once, require, or require_once statements that use variables in the file path (e.g., include($file), include($_GET['param']))Affected if Any PHP file in the theme uses variables or request parameters directly in include/require statements without sanitization
-
Inspect parameter handlingExamine PHP files that accept path-related parameters (such as 'file', 'path', 'template', 'page', or similar names from GET/POST requests) and pass them to include/require functionsAffected if User-supplied input from $_GET, $_POST, or $_REQUEST is used in file inclusion functions without validation
-
Verify whitelist absenceReview the code around vulnerable include/require statements to determine if there is strict whitelist-based validation (e.g., switch/match statements mapping to predefined files) or if raw user input flows directly to the file inclusionAffected if The code lacks whitelist validation and directly incorporates user input into the file path
You are affected if the Confidant theme version is 1.4 or earlier AND any PHP file in the theme directly uses user-controlled input in include/require statements without strict validation.
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 file inclusion parameters, use whitelist-based file selection, apply basename() to remove path traversal sequences, and ensure include paths are hardcoded or validated against an allowlist rather than directly derived from user input.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-53440 — 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-2025-53440 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