CVE-2025-69068
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 AncoraThemes Muji muji allows PHP Local File Inclusion.This issue affects Muji: from n/a through <= 1.2.0.
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 AncoraThemes Muji theme version 1.2.0 and below. The application improperly validates user-controlled input used in include/require statements, allowing attackers to include arbitrary local PHP files. This can lead to sensitive file disclosure or remote code execution if attackers can control included files or access files containing sensitive data.
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.
-
Locate Muji theme installationCheck your web root for the Muji theme directory, typically in wp-content/themes/muji/ or similar path depending on your WordPress installation structureAffected if The Muji theme directory exists on the server
-
Identify installed versionOpen the theme style.css file (usually at /wp-content/themes/muji/style.css) and look for the 'Version:' declaration in the file header commentAffected if Version is 1.2.0 or lower, or no version is declared and the theme appears to be the original Muji theme
-
Find include/require statements with user inputSearch all PHP files in the theme directory for include, include_once, require, or require_once statements that reference $_GET, $_POST, $_REQUEST, or similar superglobals. Run: grep -rn '\$_GET\|\$_POST\|\$_REQUEST' /path/to/themes/muji/ --include="*.php"Affected if Any PHP files contain include/require statements that directly use unsanitized user input parameters
-
Verify input validation on file includesExamine the PHP files identified in step 3. Check if the user-controlled parameter undergoes validation such as basename(), realpath(), whitelist checking, or directory confinement before being used in include/requireAffected if The include/require statements use raw user input without validation checks, or validation can be bypassed
-
Test parameter accessibilityIf vulnerable include patterns exist, determine if the parameter is reachable via HTTP requests (e.g., check if the affected PHP file is directly accessible or included by accessible pages)Affected if The vulnerable parameter can be controlled through HTTP requests to the affected application
You are affected if the Muji theme version is 1.2.0 or below AND your theme contains PHP files with include/require statements that accept unsanitized user input from $_GET, $_POST, or $_REQUEST parameters.
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 strict input validation using whitelist-based allowlists for file paths, use basename() and realpath() to sanitize and resolve paths, and ensure all include/require statements validate the resolved path stays within an allowed directory.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,888.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-69068 — 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-2025-69068 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