CVE-2023-6244VulnerabilityPublished 11 Jan 2024Updated 3 Jun 2025

CVE-2023-6244: EventON (WordPress plugin) · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Affects EventON (WordPress plugin)Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
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: 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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 11 Jan 2024
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 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
ashanjay EventON	Affected *	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Immediate mitigation should include updating the EventON plugin to a version that addresses this vulnerability once an official patch is released by the vendor. 2. Until a patch is available, administrators should be trained and alerted to the risk of clicking on unsolicited or suspicious links, especially those that could trigger changes in site settings. 3. Implement Web Application Firewall (WAF) rules to detect and block suspicious POST requests targeting the save_virtual_event_settings endpoint or similar plugin-specific URLs. 4. Employ Content Security Policy (CSP) and SameSite cookie attributes to reduce the risk of CSRF attacks by limiting cross-origin requests. 5. Review and harden user roles and permissions to minimize the number of administrators with access to sensitive plugin settings. 6. Conduct regular security audits of WordPress plugins and monitor for unusual changes in event data or site configurations. 7. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on immediate behavioral controls, technical defenses at the application and network layers, and organizational awareness.

Description

The EventON - WordPress Virtual Event Calendar Plugin plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 4.5.4 (Pro) & 2.2.8 (Free). This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the save_virtual_event_settings function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify virtual event settings via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.

Impact

For European organizations using WordPress sites with the EventON plugin, this vulnerability poses a risk to the integrity of event-related data. Organizations that rely on virtual events for customer engagement, internal communications, or public announcements could face disruptions or misinformation if attackers manipulate event settings. This could lead to reputational damage, loss of trust, or operational confusion, especially for entities organizing critical or large-scale events. While the vulnerability does not directly compromise confidentiality or availability, the unauthorized modification of event data could be leveraged as part of broader social engineering or phishing campaigns, potentially increasing the attack surface. European organizations in sectors such as education, government, cultural institutions, and businesses that heavily use virtual events are particularly at risk. The requirement for administrator interaction reduces the likelihood of automated exploitation but does not eliminate the threat, especially if phishing or spear-phishing tactics are employed. Given the widespread use of WordPress in Europe and the popularity of EventON, the vulnerability could have a broad impact if not addressed promptly.

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

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 4 Jul 2025, 16:25 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-352

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats