CVE-2025-62977
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 · uneditedMissing Authorization vulnerability in 沃之涛 百度站长SEO合集(支持百度/神马/Bing/头条推送) baiduseo allows Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs.This issue affects 百度站长SEO合集(支持百度/神马/Bing/头条推送): from n/a through <= 2.1.4.
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 · moderate confidenceMissing authorization vulnerability in the baiduseo WordPress plugin allows attackers to access functionality that should be restricted by access control lists. The specific vulnerable endpoints or actions are not detailed, but the issue permits accessing functions without proper capability verification.
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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
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 if baiduseo plugin is installedCheck the WordPress plugins directory (wp-content/plugins/) for a folder named 'baiduseo' or look in wp-admin > Plugins for 'baiduseo' listed as active or installedAffected if The baiduseo plugin is present and active in the WordPress installation
-
Verify WordPress user roles affectedReview the WordPress users list in wp-admin > Users to identify any users with roles that should not have administrative or privileged accessAffected if Users exist with elevated roles who should not have privileged access to baiduseo plugin functions
-
Check for missing capability checks in plugin AJAX handlersExamine the main plugin PHP file (usually baiduseo.php) and look for AJAX action handlers (add_action('wp_ajax_...')) - verify each calls current_user_can() or a capability check before executing sensitive operationsAffected if AJAX actions process requests without verifying user capabilities first
-
Review admin page handlers for authorizationInspect admin menu and page callback functions in the plugin - look for functions that handle settings, form submissions, or data modifications and verify they include current_user_can() checksAffected if Admin page handlers execute privileged operations without capability verification
-
Audit nonce verification in plugin actionsSearch plugin code for wp_nonce_field() or wp_verify_nonce() calls in form handlers and AJAX endpoints - verify nonces are checked before processing any state-changing requestsAffected if Form handlers or AJAX actions lack nonce verification, allowing CSRF attacks
The environment is affected if the baiduseo plugin is installed and its code lacks current_user_can() capability checks or nonce verification in AJAX actions and admin function handlers.
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 dataAdd WordPress capability checks (current_user_can()) and nonce verification to all admin/privileged functions. Ensure all AJAX actions and form handlers verify user permissions before executing sensitive operations.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-62977 — 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-2025-62977 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