VulnerabilityPublished 20 Jan 2026Updated 2 Apr 2026

CVE-2025-12573: Bookingor (WordPress plugin) · Missing Authorization

Affects Bookingor (WordPress plugin)Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:08 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 10% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
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: 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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 20 Jan 2026
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 26 Oct 2026.

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
Bookingor	Affected <=1.0.12	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Immediate mitigation involves restricting access to the Bookingor plugin's AJAX endpoints by limiting user roles that can authenticate and interact with these endpoints, ideally to trusted administrators only. 2. Implement Web Application Firewall (WAF) rules to detect and block suspicious AJAX requests targeting Bookingor endpoints, especially those attempting deletion actions. 3. Monitor user activity logs for unusual deletion requests or access patterns related to Bookingor data. 4. Enforce strong authentication policies for WordPress users, including multi-factor authentication (MFA) and strong password requirements, to reduce the risk of low-privileged account compromise. 5. Until an official patch is released, consider temporarily disabling or removing the Bookingor plugin if it is not critical to operations. 6. Once available, promptly apply official patches or updates from the plugin developer that address the missing authorization checks. 7. For developers or site administrators with technical expertise, consider implementing custom code to add nonce verification and capability checks on the plugin's AJAX handlers as an interim fix. 8. Educate users about phishing and credential security to prevent unauthorized access to low-privileged accounts. These steps collectively reduce the attack surface and limit the potential for exploitation.

Description

The Bookingor WordPress plugin through 1.0.12 exposes authenticated AJAX actions without capability or nonce checks, allowing low-privileged users to delete Bookingor WordPress plugin through 1.0.12 data.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-12573 is on the integrity of booking data managed by the Bookingor plugin. Unauthorized deletion of booking information can lead to operational disruptions, loss of customer trust, and potential financial losses for businesses relying on accurate reservation data. Since the vulnerability requires authenticated access, attackers must first compromise or gain low-level access to a WordPress user account, which is a common scenario in many environments due to weak passwords or phishing. The lack of confidentiality and availability impact means sensitive data leakage or denial of service are not direct concerns; however, the ability to delete data without proper authorization can undermine business continuity and data reliability. Organizations with high transaction volumes or critical booking systems may experience significant operational impact. Additionally, the absence of nonce checks increases the risk of Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) attacks, potentially allowing attackers to exploit authenticated sessions to trigger unauthorized deletions. The medium CVSS score reflects these factors, emphasizing the need for timely mitigation to prevent exploitation.

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

wpscan.com/vulnerability/b6198d76-813c-4f13-8b3d-b4609095ae34/ (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Apr 2026, 03:29 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-862

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats