CVE-2025-62120
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 Rick Beckman OpenHook thesis-openhook allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects OpenHook: from n/a through <= 4.3.1.
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 · high confidenceCross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the OpenHook WordPress plugin allows attackers to induce authenticated administrators to perform unintended actions (such as modifying plugin settings) by tricking them into visiting malicious pages. The lack of anti-CSRF token validation on state-changing admin actions enables this attack.
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
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/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 OpenHook plugin is installedLog into WordPress admin, go to Plugins > Installed Plugins, and look for 'OpenHook' in the list. Note whether it is active or inactive.Affected if The OpenHook plugin is installed and active in WordPress.
-
Identify installed OpenHook versionIn the Plugins list, find the version number displayed under the OpenHook plugin name. Compare this against the version range listed in the CVE advisory.Affected if The installed version falls within the vulnerable version range (if specified in official advisories).
-
Examine plugin files for nonce validationAccess the plugin directory via file manager or FTP (typically wp-content/plugins/openhook/). Open PHP files that handle admin actions (often in main plugin file or admin subfolder). Search for 'wp_verify_nonce', 'check_admin_referer', or 'nonce' validation calls within state-changing functions.Affected if State-changing admin functions (settings save, configuration changes) lack nonce verification calls.
-
Inspect form submissions for nonce fieldsAccess the OpenHook settings page in WordPress admin. View the page source (right-click > View Page Source) and check if forms contain hidden nonce fields (input type='hidden' with name containing 'nonce' or '_wpnonce').Affected if Forms that modify plugin settings do not include WordPress nonce fields.
A user is affected if the OpenHook plugin is active, its version is within the vulnerable range, and admin action handlers lack WordPress nonce validation for state-changing requests.
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 WordPress nonces (anti-CSRF tokens) on all forms and admin action handlers within the plugin, and verify these nonces before processing any state-changing requests.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-62120 — 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-2025-62120 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