CVE-2025-7499
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 · uneditedThe BetterDocs – Advanced AI-Driven Documentation, FAQ & Knowledge Base Tool for Elementor & Gutenberg with Encyclopedia, AI Support, Instant Answers plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized access of data due to a missing capability check on the get_response function in all versions up to and including 4.1.1. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to retrieve passwords for password-protected documents as well as the metadata of private and draft documents.
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 · high confidenceThe BetterDocs WordPress plugin has a missing capability check on the get_response function, allowing unauthenticated attackers to access sensitive data including passwords from password-protected documents and metadata from private/draft documents. This is a broken access control vulnerability where the function assumes caller authorization without verifying permissions.
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
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/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 BetterDocs plugin is installedCheck the WordPress plugins directory (wp-content/plugins/) for a folder containing 'betterdocs' in the name, or look for BetterDocs in the WordPress admin under Plugins > Installed PluginsAffected if The BetterDocs plugin folder exists in wp-content/plugins/ and is active
-
Verify the installed BetterDocs versionIn the WordPress admin, go to Plugins > Installed Plugins, find BetterDocs, and note the version number displayed, or inspect the plugin's main PHP file for the Version header commentAffected if The installed version is lower than 4.1.2
-
Confirm sensitive documentation existsIn the WordPress admin, navigate to the BetterDocs documentation pages and check whether any documents are set as private, draft, or password-protectedAffected if Password-protected, private, or draft documents exist in the BetterDocs system
-
Verify unauthenticated access to get_responseSend a direct HTTP request to the WordPress REST API endpoint or AJAX handler that calls the get_response function without providing authentication credentials, then examine if sensitive document data is returnedAffected if The function returns sensitive data (passwords, private metadata) without requiring authentication
The environment is affected if BetterDocs is installed with a version below 4.1.2 and contains password-protected, private, or draft documents, since the missing capability check allows unauthenticated attackers to access that sensitive data.
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 plugin to version 4.1.2 or later which should include proper capability checks on the get_response function. Until a patch is available, consider disabling the affected functionality or restricting server-level access.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-7499 — 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-2025-7499 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