VulnerabilityPublished 27 Nov 2023Updated 5 Jun 2025

CVE-2023-4297: Mmm Simple File List (WordPress plugin) · Path Traversal

Affects Mmm Simple File List (WordPress plugin)Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 50% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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 27 Nov 2023
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
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 Mmm Simple File List	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2023-4297, European organizations should take the following specific actions: 1) Immediately audit all WordPress installations to identify the presence of the Mmm Simple File List plugin and determine the version in use. 2) Restrict plugin usage to trusted administrators or remove the plugin entirely if not essential. 3) Implement strict user role management to limit subscriber or low-privilege user access to areas where the plugin is active. 4) Monitor web server logs for unusual directory listing requests or access patterns indicative of path traversal attempts. 5) Apply manual code review or temporary patches to enforce strict validation and sanitization of file paths within the plugin code, ensuring paths cannot traverse outside intended directories. 6) Follow up with the plugin vendor or community for official patches or updates and apply them promptly once available. 7) Consider deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block path traversal payloads targeting this plugin. 8) Educate site administrators about the risks of installing unverified plugins and the importance of timely updates. These measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on plugin-specific controls, user privilege management, and proactive monitoring tailored to this vulnerability.

Description

The Mmm Simple File List WordPress plugin through 2.3 does not validate the generated path to list files from, allowing any authenticated users, such as subscribers, to list the content of arbitrary directories.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a moderate risk primarily related to confidentiality breaches. Organizations using WordPress sites with the Mmm Simple File List plugin are at risk of unauthorized directory listing by low-privileged users, potentially exposing sensitive information such as configuration files, backups, or proprietary data stored on the web server. This could lead to further targeted attacks, including credential theft or exploitation of other vulnerabilities discovered through reconnaissance. The impact is particularly relevant for sectors with strict data protection requirements under GDPR, as unauthorized disclosure of personal or sensitive data could lead to regulatory penalties and reputational damage. Additionally, organizations relying on WordPress for customer-facing or internal portals may face increased risk of information leakage, which could undermine trust and operational security. However, since exploitation requires authenticated access, the threat is somewhat mitigated by strong access controls and user management policies. The absence of known exploits in the wild reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the need for prompt remediation.

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/9ff85b06-819c-459e-90a9-6151bfd70978 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Jul 2025, 16:13 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats