CVE-2025-10406VulnerabilityPublished 15 Oct 2025Updated 9 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-10406: BlindMatrix e-Commerce (WordPress plugin) · Path Traversal

Affects BlindMatrix e-Commerce (WordPress plugin)Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium · fixed in 3.1 : update BlindMatrix e-Commerce (WordPress plugin) when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 17% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.1

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
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: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
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 15 Oct 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
BlindMatrix e-Commerce	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Upgrade the BlindMatrix e-Commerce plugin to version 3.1 or later as soon as it becomes available, as this version addresses the path traversal vulnerability. 2. Restrict contributor-level permissions to trusted users only and regularly audit user roles to minimize the risk of insider threats. 3. Implement strict input validation and sanitization for all shortcode attributes, ensuring that path inputs cannot traverse directories or include unintended files. 4. Deploy Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with rules specifically designed to detect and block path traversal attempts targeting WordPress plugins. 5. Monitor logs for suspicious include function calls or unusual file access patterns indicative of LFI exploitation attempts. 6. Consider isolating WordPress installations and limiting file system permissions to prevent unauthorized file access beyond the web root. 7. Educate site administrators and developers about secure coding practices and the risks associated with improper input validation. 8. Apply regular vulnerability scanning and penetration testing focused on WordPress plugins to detect similar issues proactively.

Description

The BlindMatrix e-Commerce WordPress plugin before 3.1 does not validate some shortcode attributes before using them to generate paths passed to include function/s, allowing any authenticated users, such as contributors, to perform LFI attacks.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a risk primarily to the confidentiality and integrity of data hosted on WordPress e-commerce sites using the BlindMatrix plugin. Unauthorized file access could lead to exposure of sensitive business information, customer data, or internal configuration files, potentially violating GDPR and other data protection regulations. Although the attack requires authenticated contributor-level access, many organizations grant such permissions to multiple users, increasing the risk of insider threats or compromised accounts being exploited. The integrity impact could allow attackers to manipulate included files, potentially altering site behavior or injecting malicious code, which could lead to reputational damage and financial loss. Availability is not directly impacted, but indirect effects such as site defacement or data leakage could disrupt business operations. Given the widespread use of WordPress and e-commerce platforms in Europe, especially in countries with large digital economies, the vulnerability could affect a significant number of organizations if unpatched. The absence of known exploits in the wild reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially as attackers often develop exploits after public disclosure.

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/d8bdd2d4-c03c-4e7f-9c8a-6efc010311b6/ (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 9 Jan 2026, 20:47 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats