CVE-2025-69004
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 XpeedStudio Bajaar - Highly Customizable WooCommerce WordPress Theme bajaar allows PHP Local File Inclusion.This issue affects Bajaar - Highly Customizable WooCommerce WordPress Theme: from n/a through <= 2.1.0.
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 PHP Local File Inclusion (LFI) vulnerability exists in the XpeedStudio Bajaar WooCommerce theme. The vulnerability allows an attacker to manipulate file inclusion paths in PHP code (using include/require statements with user-controlled input), potentially enabling arbitrary PHP code execution by including malicious local files or accessing sensitive system files.
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
- 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 if Bajaar theme is installedIn WordPress admin, go to Appearance > Themes, or inspect /wp-content/themes/ directory for 'bajaar' or 'xpeedstudio-bajaar' folderAffected if The Bajaar theme by XpeedStudio is present in the WordPress installation
-
Determine the installed Bajaar theme versionCheck theme style.css header for 'Version:' value, or look in theme's functions.php for version definitionAffected if Version cannot be determined or is unknown (no patched version info available)
-
Locate file inclusion code in theme filesSearch theme directory for include/require statements using 'grep -r "include\|require" --include="*.php"' and look for variables in file paths (e.g., include($_GET['file']) )Affected if Dynamic file inclusion using user-controlled parameters (GET/POST) without sanitization exists
-
Check for vulnerable file inclusion parametersReview identified include/require calls - look for parameters like ?file=, ?page=, ?template= passed directly to include/require without validationAffected if File inclusion functions receive unsanitized user input from $_GET, $_POST, or $_REQUEST
-
Verify input validation on file inclusionExamine the code around file inclusion - check for basename(), realpath(), whitelist checks, or defined allowed files before inclusionAffected if No input validation, sanitization, or whitelist is present before including files
If the Bajaar theme is installed and contains dynamic file inclusion code that uses unsanitized user input, the environment is likely affected by this LFI vulnerability.
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 the Bajaar theme to the latest patched version. If no patch is available, disable the theme immediately and implement WAF rules to block directory traversal patterns in request parameters.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-69004 — 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-2025-69004 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