CVE-2025-2568VulnerabilityPublished 8 Apr 2025

CVE-2025-2568: Vayu Blocks (WordPress plugin) · Missing Authorization

Affects Vayu Blocks (WordPress plugin)Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 32% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
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: 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: 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 8 Apr 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 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
themehunk Vayu Blocks – Gutenberg Blocks for WordPress & WooCommerce	Affected =1.0.4	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, organizations should immediately update the Vayu Blocks plugin to a version that includes proper authorization checks once released by the vendor. In the absence of an official patch, administrators can implement temporary mitigations such as restricting access to the AJAX endpoints via web application firewall (WAF) rules or server-level access controls to block unauthenticated requests targeting the vulnerable callbacks. Monitoring web server logs for suspicious requests to these functions can help detect exploitation attempts. Additionally, reviewing and hardening WordPress user roles and capabilities can reduce the attack surface. Disabling or removing the plugin if it is not essential can eliminate the risk. Finally, maintaining regular backups and having an incident response plan will help recover quickly if exploitation occurs. Close coordination with the plugin vendor and timely application of security updates is critical.

Description

The Vayu Blocks – Gutenberg Blocks for WordPress & WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized access and modification of data due to missing capability checks on the 'vayu_blocks_get_toggle_switch_values_callback' and 'vayu_blocks_save_toggle_switch_callback' function in versions 1.0.4 to 1.2.1. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to read plugin options and update any option with a key name ending in '_value'.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is unauthorized modification of plugin options, which can lead to altered site functionality, degraded user experience, or weakened security controls within the affected plugin. Attackers could manipulate toggle switch settings to enable or disable features, potentially introducing security risks or operational disruptions. Although the vulnerability does not directly expose sensitive data or cause denial of service, the integrity compromise can be leveraged as a foothold for further attacks or to undermine trust in the affected website. Organizations relying on this plugin for e-commerce or content management may face reputational damage, customer trust erosion, and potential financial losses if attackers exploit this flaw to alter site behavior or configurations. Since exploitation requires no authentication and can be performed remotely, the risk of automated mass exploitation exists once public exploits emerge. The absence of known exploits currently limits immediate widespread impact but does not reduce the urgency of remediation.

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, 12:58 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-862

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats