CVE-2025-10874VulnerabilityPublished 24 Oct 2025Updated 9 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-10874: Orbit Fox: Duplicate Page, Menu Icons, SVG Support, Cookie Notice, Custom Fonts & More (WordPress plugin) · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects Orbit Fox: Duplicate Page, Menu Icons, SVG Support, Cookie Notice, Custom Fonts & More (WordPress plugin)Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium.

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: 0.1% 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: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 24 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
Orbit Fox: Duplicate Page, Menu Icons, SVG Support, Cookie Notice, Custom Fonts & More	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately update the Orbit Fox plugin to version 3.0.2 or later, where the vulnerability is patched. Until the update is applied, restrict access to the WordPress admin interface to trusted users only and enforce strong authentication mechanisms, including multi-factor authentication, to reduce the risk of credential compromise. Network-level mitigations include implementing egress filtering on web servers hosting WordPress to restrict outbound HTTP requests to only trusted domains, preventing SSRF exploitation from reaching internal services or external malicious endpoints. Additionally, monitor logs for unusual outbound requests originating from the WordPress server, especially to internal IP ranges or unexpected external URLs. Conduct regular audits of installed plugins and their versions to ensure timely patching. Finally, consider deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with SSRF detection capabilities to provide an additional layer of defense.

Description

The Orbit Fox: Duplicate Page, Menu Icons, SVG Support, Cookie Notice, Custom Fonts & More WordPress plugin before 3.0.2 does not limit URLs which may be used for the stock photo import feature, allowing the user to specify arbitrary URLs. This leads to a server-side request forgery as the user may force the server to access any URL of their choosing.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this SSRF vulnerability can be significant, especially for those relying on WordPress sites with the Orbit Fox plugin installed. Attackers with authenticated access can exploit the vulnerability to make the server perform unauthorized requests, potentially accessing internal network resources, cloud metadata services, or other sensitive endpoints. This can lead to data leakage, unauthorized internal reconnaissance, and possibly further exploitation if internal services are vulnerable. The integrity of internal systems could be compromised if attackers manipulate internal services via SSRF. Although the vulnerability does not directly cause denial of service, the indirect effects on confidentiality and integrity pose a moderate risk. Organizations handling sensitive or regulated data (e.g., GDPR-protected personal data) may face compliance issues if internal data is exposed. The requirement for high privileges limits the attack surface but does not eliminate risk, especially in environments with multiple administrators or compromised credentials.

CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #22OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.6.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Server Side Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

wpscan.com/vulnerability/171ba43f-55b6-471d-af0a-be553baf639a/ (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 9 Jan 2026, 20:48 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats