CVE-2025-30945VulnerabilityPublished 6 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-30945: Taskbuilder (WordPress plugin) · Missing Authorization

Affects Taskbuilder (WordPress plugin)Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 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 27% 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:L/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: 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: 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: 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 6 Jun 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
taskbuilder Taskbuilder	Affected <=4.0.3	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Immediate mitigation should focus on restricting network exposure of Taskbuilder instances, such as placing them behind firewalls or VPNs to limit access to trusted users only. 2. Implement additional access control mechanisms at the network or application gateway level to enforce authorization policies externally until patches are available. 3. Monitor logs and access patterns for unusual or unauthorized attempts to access Taskbuilder functionalities. 4. Engage with the vendor or community to obtain patches or updates addressing this vulnerability as soon as they become available. 5. Conduct an internal audit of Taskbuilder usage to identify sensitive functionalities that could be exploited and apply compensating controls such as role-based access restrictions or manual approval workflows. 6. Educate administrators and users about the risk and encourage prompt reporting of suspicious activity related to Taskbuilder. 7. Consider isolating Taskbuilder environments or limiting their integration with critical systems to reduce potential impact.

Description

Missing Authorization vulnerability in taskbuilder Taskbuilder allows Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs. This issue affects Taskbuilder: from n/a through 4.0.3.

Impact

For European organizations using Taskbuilder, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive or restricted functionalities within the application. This could result in leakage of confidential information or exposure of internal workflows, potentially violating data protection regulations such as GDPR if personal or sensitive data is involved. Since the vulnerability does not affect integrity or availability, it is less likely to cause system downtime or data manipulation. However, unauthorized access could still undermine trust and compliance posture. Organizations in sectors with strict regulatory requirements (e.g., finance, healthcare, government) could face increased risk of compliance violations and reputational damage if this vulnerability is exploited. The remote and unauthenticated nature of the exploit increases the risk profile, as attackers do not need prior access or user interaction to attempt 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

patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/taskbuilder/vulnerability/wordpress-taskbuilder-4-0-3-broken-access-control-vulnerability?_s_id=cve (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 8 Jul 2025, 03:59 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-862

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats