VulnerabilityPublished 10 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-4840: inprosysmedia-likes-dislikes-post (WordPress plugin) · SQL Injection

Affects inprosysmedia-likes-dislikes-post (WordPress plugin)Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 45% 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:H/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
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: 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: 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 10 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 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
Unknown inprosysmedia-likes-dislikes-post	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

European organizations should take immediate steps to mitigate this vulnerability. First, identify and inventory all WordPress installations using the 'inprosysmedia-likes-dislikes-post' plugin. Until an official patch is released, disable or uninstall the plugin to eliminate the attack surface. If disabling the plugin is not feasible, implement Web Application Firewall (WAF) rules to detect and block suspicious AJAX requests targeting the vulnerable endpoint, focusing on anomalous SQL syntax or injection patterns. Employ strict input validation and sanitization at the application level if custom modifications are possible. Monitor web server and application logs for unusual activity indicative of exploitation attempts. Additionally, ensure that database accounts used by WordPress have the least privileges necessary to limit the impact of a successful injection. Regularly back up website data and databases to enable recovery in case of compromise. Stay informed about updates from the plugin developers or WordPress security advisories to apply patches promptly once available.

Description

The inprosysmedia-likes-dislikes-post WordPress plugin through 1.0.0 does not properly sanitise and escape a parameter before using it in a SQL statement via an AJAX action available to unauthenticated users, leading to a SQL injection

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk, especially for those relying on WordPress websites that utilize the 'inprosysmedia-likes-dislikes-post' plugin. Exploitation could lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information stored in the backend database, including user data, content management details, or other confidential business information. This breach of confidentiality could result in GDPR violations, leading to substantial fines and legal consequences. Additionally, the presence of an exploitable SQL injection could be leveraged as a foothold for further attacks, such as pivoting into internal networks or escalating privileges if combined with other vulnerabilities. The fact that exploitation requires no authentication or user interaction increases the risk of automated mass scanning and exploitation attempts. Organizations in sectors such as e-commerce, media, and public services, which often use WordPress extensively, may face operational disruptions and damage to customer trust. The lack of a patch at this time necessitates immediate attention to prevent exploitation.

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/85dc579d-edc4-421e-9bb1-09629dec527b/ (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 10 Jul 2025, 22:49 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-89

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats