CVE-2025-58945
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 EcoGrow ecogrow allows PHP Local File Inclusion.This issue affects EcoGrow: from n/a through <= 1.7.
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 confidenceThe EcoGrow theme for WordPress contains a PHP Local File Inclusion (LFI) vulnerability where user-controlled input is used in include/require statements without proper sanitization. An attacker could exploit this to execute arbitrary PHP code by including malicious local files, potentially leading to full system compromise.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data<= 1.7CVSS 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.
-
Identify EcoGrow theme versionNavigate to Appearance > Themes in WordPress admin panel and check the installed version of the EcoGrow theme, or inspect the style.css file in wp-content/themes/ecogrow/ and look for the 'Version:' headerAffected if The installed version is 1.7 or lower
-
Locate theme PHP files using include/require with user inputSearch theme PHP files (especially in the root and includes/ folders) for patterns like include($_GET[ or require($_REQUEST[ or include($_POST[ - these indicate potential LFI vulnerabilitiesAffected if Any PHP file contains include/require statements using $_GET, $_POST, or $_REQUEST parameters directly without sanitization
-
Inspect vulnerable parameter usageIf include/require with user input is found, test by accessing the site with a malicious URL parameter (e.g., ?file=../../../../etc/passwd) to see if the file contents are exposedAffected if The vulnerable parameter can be manipulated to read local files outside the theme directory
-
Check for input sanitization functionsReview the code around include/require statements to see if basename(), realpath(), or whitelist validation is applied to user-supplied file parametersAffected if No sanitization functions are used, or sanitization can be bypassed
-
Verify WordPress version is not mitigating the issueConfirm that the WordPress core version is up to date, as some LFI protections may exist in newer WP versionsAffected if WordPress is outdated and provides no additional protection against the theme's LFI vulnerability
You are affected if the EcoGrow theme version is 1.7 or lower AND the theme contains include/require statements using unsanitized user input from $_GET, $_POST, or $_REQUEST parameters.
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 and whitelisting for any parameters used in include/require statements. Use basename() and realpath() to sanitize file paths, and avoid direct use of user input in file inclusion functions.
- 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-2025-58945 — 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-2025-58945 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