CVE-2025-4580VulnerabilityPublished 4 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-4580: File Provider (WordPress plugin) · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Affects File Provider (WordPress plugin)Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 5% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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 4 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 File Provider	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should first verify if their WordPress installations use the File Provider plugin and identify the version in use. Immediate steps include: 1) Applying any available patches or updates from the plugin developer once released. 2) Implementing Web Application Firewall (WAF) rules that detect and block CSRF attack patterns targeting the plugin's settings update endpoints. 3) Enforcing strict administrative access controls, including multi-factor authentication (MFA) for WordPress admin accounts, to reduce the risk of session hijacking or unauthorized access. 4) Educating administrators to avoid clicking on suspicious links or visiting untrusted websites while logged into the WordPress admin panel to reduce the likelihood of CSRF exploitation. 5) Reviewing and hardening session management settings in WordPress to limit session duration and scope. 6) Considering the use of security plugins that add CSRF protections or monitor for unauthorized changes to plugin settings. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on compensating controls and proactive monitoring until an official patch is available.

Description

The File Provider WordPress plugin through 1.2.3 does not have CSRF check in place when updating its settings, which could allow attackers to make a logged in admin change them via a CSRF attack

Impact

For European organizations using the File Provider plugin in their WordPress installations, this vulnerability poses a risk primarily to the integrity of their website configurations. An attacker exploiting this flaw could alter plugin settings, potentially enabling malicious functionalities, disabling security features, or redirecting site behavior. While the vulnerability itself does not lead directly to data leakage or service disruption, the unauthorized changes could facilitate further attacks such as privilege escalation, data manipulation, or site defacement. Organizations in sectors with high reliance on WordPress for public-facing websites—such as media, e-commerce, education, and government—may face reputational damage or operational disruptions if attackers leverage this vulnerability. Additionally, the requirement for an authenticated admin session means that organizations with weak administrative access controls or insufficient session management are at higher risk. The lack of known exploits reduces immediate threat but does not eliminate the risk, especially as threat actors often develop exploits rapidly after disclosure. Given the medium severity, the impact is moderate but should not be underestimated in environments where WordPress plugins are critical to business operations.

CWE-352Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) (opens in a new tab)
Compound weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #3OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
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.
Implementation
Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
Architecture and Design
Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization Testing Automation (opens in a new tab)
Insecure Direct Object Reference Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V4.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking) (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Domain Search Timing (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Identification (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

wpscan.com/vulnerability/8741353a-2a7f-4dee-b62d-7f5fe435f1a1/ (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Jul 2025, 00:26 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-352

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats