CVE-2025-69377
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 Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') vulnerability in vanquish User Extra Fields wp-user-extra-fields allows Path Traversal.This issue affects User Extra Fields: from n/a through <= 17.0.
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 path traversal vulnerability exists in the vanquish User Extra Fields WordPress plugin (wp-user-extra-fields) version 17.0 and prior. The vulnerability allows attackers to access files outside the web root directory through improper limitation of pathnames, likely due to insufficient input validation on file path parameters.
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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Confirm plugin installationCheck for the plugin directory at wp-content/plugins/wp-user-extra-fields/ or wp-content/plugins/vanquish-user-extra-fields/ via file system or WordPress admin plugins pageAffected if Plugin directory exists in wp-content/plugins/
-
Identify installed versionOpen the main plugin file (usually index.php or wp-user-extra-fields.php) and locate the version defined in the plugin header comment, or check readme.txt for the Version tagAffected if Version declared in plugin header is 17.0 or lower, or readme.txt shows version 17.0 or lower
-
Verify vulnerable code presenceSearch plugin files for functions handling file paths, such as file inclusion (include, require, readfile) with user-supplied parameters like 'file', 'path', 'template', or 'download', especially without sanitization using basename() or realpath()Affected if File handling code exists that accepts path parameters without proper path traversal protections
-
Test web-accessible endpoint (if possible)If the plugin exposes file download or include functionality via HTTP (check plugin admin menus or code for URL handlers), attempt a benign path traversal test such as requesting a parameter value like ../../wp-config.php (do not execute, only observe if path is accepted)Affected if The plugin accepts path traversal sequences in HTTP parameters without rejection
Your environment is affected if the vanquish User Extra Fields plugin (wp-user-extra-fields) is installed at version 17.0 or lower and the vulnerable file path handling functionality is present and accessible.
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 if available, or implement input validation to restrict path references to the intended directory. Consider replacing the plugin with an actively maintained alternative if no patch is released, as the vendor appears to be unmaintained (vanquish).
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-69377 — 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-2025-69377 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