VulnerabilityPublished 16 Jan 2024Updated 2 Jun 2025

CVE-2023-2252: Directorist (WordPress plugin) · Path Traversal

Affects Directorist (WordPress plugin)Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · public detection template (Nuclei) · CVSS 2.7 Low · fixed in 7.5.4 : update Directorist (WordPress plugin) when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

2.7Low

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 1.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 71% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 7.5.4

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 16 Jan 2024
Detectable: evidence found.
nuclei template: Directorist < 7.5.4 - Local File Inclusion
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Unknown Directorist	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

European organizations should ensure that all WordPress plugins, including Directorist, are updated to the latest version (7.5.4 or later) where this vulnerability is patched. Access controls should be strictly enforced to limit administrative privileges only to trusted users, reducing the risk of exploitation by malicious insiders or compromised accounts. Implementing Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with rules to detect and block path traversal attempts can provide an additional layer of defense. Regular security audits and monitoring of file access logs can help detect suspicious activity related to file inclusion attempts. Finally, organizations should consider isolating WordPress environments and sensitive files to minimize the impact of any potential LFI vulnerabilities.

Description

The Directorist WordPress plugin before 7.5.4 is vulnerable to Local File Inclusion as it does not validate the file parameter when importing CSV files.

Impact

For European organizations using the Directorist plugin on their WordPress sites, the impact of this vulnerability is relatively limited due to the requirement for high-level authentication and the low severity score. However, if an attacker gains administrative or equivalent access, they could exploit this vulnerability to read sensitive files on the server, potentially exposing credentials, configuration files, or other sensitive data. This could lead to further attacks such as privilege escalation or lateral movement within the network. Organizations in sectors with strict data protection regulations, such as finance, healthcare, or government, could face compliance risks if sensitive data is exposed. Additionally, the reputational damage from a breach involving sensitive data exposure could be significant. Since the vulnerability does not allow remote unauthenticated exploitation or direct code execution, the immediate risk is lower compared to more severe vulnerabilities, but it still represents a potential foothold for attackers with some level of access.

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

wpscan.com/vulnerability/9da6eede-10d0-4609-8b97-4a5d38fa8e69/ (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Jul 2025, 17:27 UTC

Public exploits and detectiona Nuclei detection template

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats