VulnerabilityPublished 30 Nov 2023Updated 3 Jun 2025

CVE-2023-48330: Bulk Comment Remove (WordPress plugin) · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Affects Bulk Comment Remove (WordPress plugin)Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 16% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 30 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

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Immediately review and restrict the use of the Bulk Comment Remove plugin, especially on high-value or sensitive web properties. 2) Apply strict Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to limit the domains from which scripts can be loaded, reducing the risk of CSRF attack vectors. 3) Implement or enforce anti-CSRF tokens in all state-changing requests if possible, either by updating the plugin when a patch is available or by applying custom code to validate request authenticity. 4) Educate users with comment management privileges about the risks of clicking on suspicious links or visiting untrusted websites while authenticated. 5) Monitor web server logs and application logs for unusual comment removal activity, particularly requests originating from external referrers or unusual user agents. 6) If feasible, temporarily disable the Bulk Comment Remove functionality until a security patch is released. 7) Engage with the plugin vendor or community to obtain or contribute patches that address the CSRF vulnerability. 8) Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules designed to detect and block CSRF attack patterns targeting the plugin endpoints. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on plugin-specific controls, user awareness, and monitoring tailored to the vulnerability context.

Description

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in Mike Strand Bulk Comment Remove allows Cross Site Request Forgery.This issue affects Bulk Comment Remove: from n/a through 2.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability depends on the extent to which the Bulk Comment Remove plugin is deployed within their web infrastructure. Organizations using this plugin in their content management systems or web platforms may face unauthorized deletion of comments, which can lead to loss of user-generated content, disruption of community engagement, and potential reputational damage. The integrity of web content is compromised, and availability of comment data may be affected. In regulated sectors, such as finance, healthcare, or public services, unauthorized content manipulation could lead to compliance issues or loss of trust. Additionally, attackers might leverage this vulnerability as part of a broader attack chain to sow confusion or cover tracks by removing audit trails in comments. Since exploitation requires user interaction but no privileges, phishing or social engineering campaigns targeting authenticated users could be effective. The medium severity rating suggests moderate risk, but the actual impact could be higher in environments with critical reliance on comment data or where the plugin is widely used.

CWE-352Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) (opens in a new tab)
Compound weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #3OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Implementation
Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
Architecture and Design
Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization Testing Automation (opens in a new tab)
Insecure Direct Object Reference Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V4.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking) (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Domain Search Timing (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Identification (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/bulk-comment-remove/wordpress-bulk-comment-remove-plugin-2-cross-site-request-forgery-csrf-vulnerability?_s_id=cve (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 5 Jul 2025, 23:27 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-352

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats