CVE-2025-10579VulnerabilityPublished 25 Oct 2025Updated 27 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-10579: BackWPup (WordPress plugin) · Missing Authorization

Affects BackWPup (WordPress plugin)Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 20% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 25 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 2026-10-25.

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
wp_media BackWPup – WordPress Backup & Restore Plugin	Affected *	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, organizations should immediately update the BackWPup plugin to a patched version once available. In the absence of an official patch, administrators can implement the following specific measures: 1) Restrict access to the 'backwpup_working' AJAX action by adding custom capability checks in the plugin code or via WordPress hooks to ensure only trusted roles (e.g., Administrator) can invoke it. 2) Harden web server configurations (especially NGINX) to prevent unauthorized access to backup files, including restricting directory listings and enforcing strict file access permissions. 3) Monitor user roles and minimize the assignment of Subscriber or other low-privilege accounts to untrusted users to reduce the attack surface. 4) Employ Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) to detect and block suspicious AJAX requests targeting the vulnerable endpoint. 5) Regularly audit backup storage locations and access logs for unusual activity. 6) Educate site administrators about the risks of exposing backup information and the importance of timely plugin updates. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on the specific vulnerable endpoint and the operational context of the plugin.

Description

The BackWPup – WordPress Backup & Restore Plugin plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized access of data due to a missing capability check on the 'backwpup_working' AJAX action in all versions up to, and including, 5.5.0. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to retrieve access to a back-up's filename while a backup is running. This information has little value on it's own, but could be used to aid in a brute force attack to retrieve back-up contents in limited environments (i.e. NGINX).

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is unauthorized disclosure of backup filenames, which compromises confidentiality. While the filename alone is not highly sensitive, it can serve as a stepping stone for attackers to attempt brute force or other attacks to access backup contents, potentially exposing sensitive website data, including user information, configuration files, or proprietary content. This risk is heightened in environments where web server configurations (e.g., NGINX) might allow easier access to backup files once their names are known. Organizations relying on the BackWPup plugin for backup management may face increased risk of data leakage, especially if attackers can escalate privileges or exploit other vulnerabilities in conjunction. The vulnerability does not affect data integrity or availability directly, but the potential exposure of backups could lead to reputational damage, compliance violations, and increased attack surface. Given WordPress’s widespread use globally, the threat could impact a broad range of organizations, from small businesses to large enterprises and hosting providers. The medium severity rating reflects the moderate risk posed by the vulnerability, balancing the limited direct impact with the ease of exploitation by low-privileged authenticated users.

CWE-862Missing Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #4OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws (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, 18:29 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-862

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats