CVE-2025-8102
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 Easy Digital Downloads plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.5.0. This is due to missing nonce validations in the edd_sendwp_disconnect() and edd_sendwp_remote_install() functions. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to deactivate or download and activate the SendWP plugin via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.
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 Easy Digital Downloads plugin for WordPress lacks nonce validation in the edd_sendwp_disconnect() and edd_sendwp_remote_install() functions, allowing unauthenticated attackers to forge requests that deactivate or install the SendWP plugin by tricking administrators into clicking malicious links.
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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
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 Easy Digital Downloads plugin is installedIn WordPress admin, go to Plugins > Installed Plugins and look for 'Easy Digital Downloads' in the list. Note the installed version number displayed.Affected if The plugin is installed and active
-
Check installed version against fixed releaseCompare your installed Easy Digital Downloads version to the vendor's release notes for the version containing the nonce validation fix. The fix addresses missing nonce validation in edd_sendwp_disconnect() and edd_sendwp_remote_install() functions.Affected if The installed version predates the security update containing nonce validation
-
Verify SendWP integration is configuredNavigate to Downloads > Settings > Extensions (or similar path for SendWP settings). Check if the SendWP integration module is enabled or if any SendWP-related settings exist.Affected if SendWP integration is enabled or configured in the plugin settings
-
Identify accessible endpoints for affected functionsCheck WordPress site for AJAX or admin action endpoints that call edd_sendwp_disconnect() or edd_sendwp_remote_install(). These may be accessible via wp-admin/admin-ajax.php or admin-post.php with 'edd_sendwp_disconnect' or 'edd_sendwp_remote_install' action parameters.Affected if These endpoints are reachable without requiring nonce verification in the request
Your environment is affected if Easy Digital Downloads is installed with a version predating the nonce validation fix and the SendWP integration features are accessible to administrators.
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 the latest version of Easy Digital Downloads and implement proper nonce validation in the affected functions. Administrators should avoid clicking untrusted links to prevent CSRF attacks.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-8102 — 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-2025-8102 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