CVE-2025-4103VulnerabilityPublished 31 May 2025Updated 2 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-4103: WP-GeoMeta · Improper Authorization

Affects WP-GeoMetaSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.8 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.8High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 35% 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:H/I:H/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: High

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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 31 May 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
luminfire WP-GeoMeta	Affected =0.3.4	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-4103, organizations should immediately audit their WordPress installations for the presence of the WP-GeoMeta plugin, specifically versions 0.3.4 and 0.3.5. Until an official patch is released, administrators can implement the following specific measures: 1) Disable or remove the WP-GeoMeta plugin if its functionality is not critical. 2) Restrict access to the wp-admin/admin-ajax.php endpoint via web application firewall (WAF) rules to limit AJAX calls to trusted IP addresses or authenticated users with higher privileges. 3) Implement custom code to add capability checks on the wp_ajax_wpgm_start_geojson_import() action hook, ensuring only administrators can invoke it. 4) Enforce strong authentication and monitor for unusual privilege escalation attempts in WordPress logs. 5) Regularly update WordPress core and plugins to the latest versions once a patch is available. 6) Employ security plugins that can detect and block unauthorized privilege escalation attempts. These targeted mitigations go beyond generic advice by focusing on the vulnerable function and access controls specific to this plugin.

Description

The WP-GeoMeta plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Privilege Escalation due to a missing capability check on the wp_ajax_wpgm_start_geojson_import() function in versions 0.3.4 to 0.3.5. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to elevate their privileges to that of an administrator.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2025-4103 is substantial for organizations running WordPress sites with the WP-GeoMeta plugin versions 0.3.4 or 0.3.5. Successful exploitation grants attackers full administrative privileges, enabling them to manipulate site content, install backdoors, exfiltrate sensitive data, or disrupt site availability. This can lead to data breaches, defacement, loss of customer trust, and potential regulatory penalties. Since the vulnerability requires only authenticated access at a low privilege level, it lowers the barrier for attackers who may gain Subscriber accounts through phishing, credential stuffing, or other means. The widespread use of WordPress globally, combined with the plugin's niche but relevant functionality for geospatial data, means that targeted attacks could affect organizations in sectors like real estate, logistics, and local services. The absence of known exploits currently provides a window for mitigation, but the high severity score underscores the urgency to address the issue before active exploitation emerges.

CWE-285Improper Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
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 you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply 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
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Subverting Environment Variable Values (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (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, 14:15 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-285

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats