CVE-2024-12634VulnerabilityPublished 7 Mar 2025

CVE-2024-12634: Related Posts, Inline Related Posts, Contextual Related Posts, Related Content By PickPlugins (WordPress plugin) · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Affects Related Posts, Inline Related Posts, Contextual Related Posts, Related Content By PickPlugins (WordPress plugin)Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.1 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.1Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 8% 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:C/C:L/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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: 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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 7 Mar 2025
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 2026-10-26.

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
pickplugins Related Posts, Inline Related Posts, Contextual Related Posts, Related Content By PickPlugins	Affected =2.0.59	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-12634, organizations should immediately update the affected PickPlugins plugins to a patched version once available. In the absence of an official patch, site administrators should implement manual nonce validation in the plugin code for all functions that perform state-changing actions, ensuring that every request includes a valid nonce token verified server-side. Additionally, administrators should enforce strict user access controls, limiting administrative privileges to trusted users only. Employing web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules to detect and block CSRF attack patterns can provide temporary protection. Educating site administrators about phishing and social engineering risks is critical to reduce the likelihood of user interaction with malicious links. Regular security audits and monitoring for unusual administrative actions or content changes can help detect exploitation attempts early. Finally, consider disabling or replacing the affected plugins with alternatives that follow secure coding practices until a secure update is released.

Description

The Related Posts, Inline Related Posts, Contextual Related Posts, Related Content By PickPlugins plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including 2.0.59. This is due to missing nonce validation on a function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject malicious web scripts via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-12634 is the potential for unauthorized actions to be performed on WordPress sites using the affected PickPlugins plugins by exploiting the CSRF vulnerability. An attacker can trick an administrator into executing malicious requests, potentially leading to unauthorized changes in plugin settings, injection of malicious scripts, or manipulation of related post content. This can compromise the confidentiality and integrity of site data and user information. While availability is not directly affected, the injected scripts or unauthorized changes could facilitate further attacks such as persistent cross-site scripting (XSS) or privilege escalation. Organizations relying on these plugins may face reputational damage, data leakage, or site defacement if exploited. Since the vulnerability requires user interaction but no authentication, phishing campaigns targeting site administrators could be an effective attack vector. The lack of nonce validation indicates a fundamental security oversight that could be exploited at scale on vulnerable WordPress sites worldwide.

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 26 Feb 2026, 03:14 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-352

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats