CVE-2025-0916VulnerabilityPublished 19 Feb 2025

CVE-2025-0916: YaySMTP and Email Logs: Amazon SES, SendGrid, Outlook, Mailgun, Brevo, Google and Any SMTP Service (WordPress plugin) · Cross-site Scripting

Affects YaySMTP and Email Logs: Amazon SES, SendGrid, Outlook, Mailgun, Brevo, Google and Any SMTP Service (WordPress plugin)Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.2 High · fixed in 2.4.8 : patch YaySMTP and Email Logs: Amazon SES, SendGrid, Outlook, Mailgun, Brevo, Google and Any SMTP Service (WordPress plugin) soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.2High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 31% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.4.8

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
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: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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 19 Feb 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
yaycommerce YaySMTP and Email Logs: Amazon SES, SendGrid, Outlook, Mailgun, Brevo, Google and Any SMTP Service	Affected =2.4.9	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-0916, organizations should immediately verify the version of the YaySMTP and Email Logs plugin in use and upgrade to a version where the vulnerability is fully patched once released. If you cannot patch yet, consider the following specific actions: 1) Re-enable or implement robust input sanitization and output escaping functions such as wp_kses_post() to neutralize potentially malicious input; 2) Restrict access to plugin pages that render user-generated content by applying strict user role permissions or IP-based access controls; 3) Employ Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block typical XSS payloads targeting the plugin’s endpoints; 4) Conduct thorough code reviews and security testing on customizations or integrations involving the plugin to identify injection points; 5) Monitor logs and user activity for unusual behavior indicative of exploitation attempts; 6) Educate site administrators about the risks of installing unverified plugin versions and the importance of timely updates. Additionally, consider isolating critical email infrastructure components and enforcing Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to limit script execution scope. These targeted mitigations go beyond generic advice by focusing on the plugin’s specific weaknesses and operational context.

Description

The YaySMTP and Email Logs: Amazon SES, SendGrid, Outlook, Mailgun, Brevo, Google and Any SMTP Service plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting in versions 2.4.9 to 2.6.2 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page. Note: The vulnerability has been initially patched in version 2.4.8 and was reintroduced in version 2.4.9 with the removal of the wp_kses_post() built-in WordPress sanitization function.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2025-0916 is significant for organizations using the affected YaySMTP and Email Logs plugin versions. Successful exploitation can lead to stored XSS attacks, allowing attackers to execute arbitrary scripts in the context of authenticated users’ browsers. This can result in theft of sensitive information such as session cookies, credentials, or personally identifiable information, leading to account compromise and unauthorized access. Attackers may also perform actions on behalf of users, potentially modifying email logs or configurations, which could disrupt email delivery or facilitate further attacks such as phishing. The vulnerability affects confidentiality and integrity but does not impact availability directly. Given the plugin’s integration with major SMTP services, organizations relying on these email infrastructures for critical communications, including e-commerce, customer notifications, and internal alerts, face increased risk of data breaches and operational disruption. The lack of authentication or user interaction requirements lowers the barrier for exploitation, increasing the threat surface. Although no known exploits are currently active in the wild, the vulnerability’s presence in widely deployed WordPress plugins means a large number of websites could be targeted, especially those with high traffic or valuable user data.

CWE-79Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #1OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.
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 · Architecture and Design
Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages.
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XSS Using MIME Type Mismatch (opens in a new tab)
DOM-Based XSS (opens in a new tab)
Reflected XSS (opens in a new tab)
Stored XSS (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) (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 27 Feb 2026, 17:55 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-79

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats