CVE-2025-60075
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 Allegro Marketing hpb seo plugin for WordPress hpbseo allows Reflected XSS.This issue affects hpb seo plugin for WordPress: from n/a through <= 3.0.1.
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 Allegro Marketing hpb seo WordPress plugin (version <= 3.0.1) enables reflected XSS attacks. Attackers can craft malicious requests that trick authenticated administrators into executing unintended actions, with the reflected XSS allowing execution of arbitrary JavaScript in user browsers.
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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
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 hpb seo plugin is installedNavigate to WordPress admin panel > Plugins > Installed Plugins and look for 'hpb seo' by Allegro Marketing, or inspect the wp-content/plugins/ directory for a folder named 'hpb-seo' or similar.Affected if The plugin appears in the installed plugins list.
-
Check installed plugin versionIn the Plugins list view, locate the version column for hpb seo, or open the main plugin PHP file (usually hpb-seo.php or index.php) and read the 'Version' field in the plugin header comment.Affected if The reported version is 3.0.1 or lower.
-
Identify plugin forms and admin actionsExamine the plugin source code in wp-content/plugins/ for PHP files containing form tags (form method="post"), admin_menu or add_menu_page hooks, and any action parameters handling user requests.Affected if The plugin contains forms or admin actions that process user submissions.
-
Verify CSRF protection in plugin codeSearch the plugin PHP files for presence of 'wp_nonce_field', 'wp_nonce_url', 'check_admin_referer', or 'check_ajax_referer' functions around form processing and action handlers.Affected if Plugin forms and actions lack nonce verification or anti-CSRF token validation.
-
Check input handling for reflected XSSReview plugin code for echo or print statements that output REQUEST, POST, or GET parameters directly without sanitization functions such as esc_html, esc_attr, or sanitize_text_field.Affected if User-supplied input is reflected in output without proper encoding or validation.
If the hpb seo plugin is installed at version 3.0.1 or lower and its code lacks CSRF token validation on forms/actions with unencoded user input reflection, the environment is affected by this CVE.
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 dataUpdate to a patched version of the hpb seo plugin when released by the vendor. Until then, implement anti-CSRF tokens in plugin forms and actions, and apply proper input validation and output encoding to prevent reflected XSS.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-60075 — 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-2025-60075 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