CVE-2025-3951VulnerabilityPublished 2 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-3951: WP-Optimize · SQL Injection

Affects WP-OptimizeSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.1 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.1Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 24% 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:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
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: 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: 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 2 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 2026-10-26.

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
Unknown WP-Optimize	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should prioritize upgrading the WP-Optimize plugin to version 4.2.0 or later as soon as it becomes available, as this version addresses the input sanitization issue. Until an official patch is released, organizations should restrict administrator access strictly to trusted personnel and implement robust monitoring of administrator activities and database queries for unusual patterns. Employing Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious SQL injection attempts targeting the plugin's image compression status checks can provide an additional layer of defense. Regular security audits of WordPress multisite configurations and plugins should be conducted to identify and remediate similar vulnerabilities proactively. Furthermore, enforcing multi-factor authentication (MFA) for administrator accounts reduces the risk of credential compromise, thereby limiting the potential for exploitation. Backup strategies should be reviewed and tested to ensure rapid recovery in case of data manipulation or corruption.

Description

The WP-Optimize WordPress plugin before 4.2.0 does not properly escape user input when checking image compression statuses, which could allow users with the administrator role to conduct SQL Injection attacks in the context of Multi-Site WordPress configurations.

Impact

For European organizations using WordPress multisite installations with the WP-Optimize plugin, this vulnerability poses a risk primarily when an attacker has already obtained administrator-level access. Given that multisite WordPress setups are common in large enterprises, educational institutions, and media companies, exploitation could allow attackers to execute unauthorized SQL commands, potentially leading to unauthorized access to sensitive data or disruption of database operations. While the direct impact on confidentiality is rated low, the altered scope and potential for data manipulation could have cascading effects on data integrity and trustworthiness of the affected systems. Since the vulnerability requires high privileges, the risk is somewhat mitigated by existing access controls; however, insider threats or compromised administrator accounts could leverage this flaw. European organizations with strict data protection regulations, such as GDPR, may face compliance risks if sensitive personal data is exposed or altered due to exploitation. Additionally, the multisite context increases the potential blast radius, as multiple sites could be affected simultaneously.

CWE-89Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #2OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of an SQL command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended SQL command when it is sent to a downstream component. Without sufficient removal or quoting of SQL syntax in user-controllable inputs, the generated SQL query can cause those inputs to be interpreted as SQL instead of ordinary user data.
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.
Architecture and Design · Parameterization
If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Environment Hardening
Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Query Parameterization (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
XML External Entity Prevention (opens in a new tab)
File Upload (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.3.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection through SOAP Parameter Tampering (opens in a new tab)
Expanding Control over the Operating System from the Database (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

wpscan.com/vulnerability/220c195f-3df3-4883-8e0b-a0cf019e6323/ (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 9 Jul 2025, 12:26 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-89

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats