CVE-2025-68996
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 WebCodingPlace Responsive Posts Carousel Pro responsive-posts-carousel-pro allows PHP Local File Inclusion.This issue affects Responsive Posts Carousel Pro: from n/a through <= 15.1.
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 confidenceA Local File Inclusion (LFI) vulnerability in the Responsive Posts Carousel Pro WordPress plugin allows attackers to include arbitrary PHP files from the local server via improper control of filename parameters in include/require statements. This could enable reading sensitive files or potentially remote code execution.
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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/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.
-
Verify the plugin is installedCheck for the existence of the 'responsive-posts-carousel-pro' directory in wp-content/plugins/ on the WordPress server file systemAffected if The plugin directory exists on the server
-
Determine the installed plugin versionRead the plugin header from the main PHP file (e.g., responsive-posts-carousel-pro.php) or check the Version field in readme.txt within the plugin directoryAffected if The installed version matches or falls within any affected version range if publicly disclosed
-
Confirm the plugin is activeQuery the WordPress database wp_options table for option_name='active_plugins' or use wp-cli: wp plugin list --status=active --name=responsive-posts-carousel-proAffected if The plugin appears in the list of active plugins
-
Identify vulnerable file inclusion codeSearch the plugin source code for include/require statements using unsanitized variables (e.g., include($_GET['file']) or similar patterns) in files within the plugin directoryAffected if The plugin contains file inclusion logic using request parameters without proper validation
-
Check for indicators of exploitation attemptsReview web server access logs (Apache/nginx) for suspicious requests targeting the plugin with directory traversal patterns (e.g., ../../etc/passwd) in query parametersAffected if Log entries show requests with traversal sequences directed at the plugin's inclusion endpoints
The environment is likely affected if the Responsive Posts Carousel Pro plugin is installed, active, and contains exploitable file inclusion code, or if exploitation attempts are visible in server logs.
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 plugin if available, or disable the plugin until remediated. Implement strict input validation on file inclusion parameters and consider deploying a WAF to block directory traversal attempts.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,880.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-68996 — 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-2025-68996 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