VulnerabilityPublished 19 Jun 2025Updated 20 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-5071: AI Engine (WordPress plugin) · Incorrect Authorization

Affects AI Engine (WordPress plugin)Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.8 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.8High

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 51% 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 19 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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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
tigroumeow AI Engine	Affected =2.8.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Immediate upgrade: Organizations should update the tigroumeow AI Engine plugin to a patched version once available. In the absence of an official patch, consider temporarily disabling or uninstalling the plugin to eliminate the attack surface.
Access restriction: Limit subscriber-level user registrations and audit existing user roles to ensure no unnecessary privileges are granted.
Implement Web Application Firewall (WAF) rules to monitor and block suspicious requests targeting the MCP endpoints or commands associated with the plugin.
Monitor logs for unusual activity related to user creation, updates, or content modifications that could indicate exploitation attempts.
Harden WordPress security by enforcing strong authentication mechanisms, such as multi-factor authentication for all users with elevated privileges.
Conduct regular security audits and vulnerability scans focusing on plugins and their access controls.
If feasible, apply custom code or filters to enforce capability checks on the MCP functions as a temporary workaround until official patches are released.
Educate site administrators and users about the risks of privilege escalation and encourage prompt reporting of suspicious behavior.

Description

The AI Engine plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized modification of data and loss of data due to a missing capability check on the 'Meow_MWAI_Labs_MCP::can_access_mcp' function in versions 2.8.0 to 2.8.3. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with subscriber-level access and above, to have full access to the MCP and run various commands like 'wp_create_user', 'wp_update_user' and 'wp_update_option', which can be used for privilege escalation, and 'wp_update_post', 'wp_delete_post', 'wp_update_comment' and 'wp_delete_comment', which can be used to edit and delete posts and comments.

Impact

The vulnerability poses a significant risk to organizations running WordPress sites with the tigroumeow AI Engine plugin versions 2.8.0 to 2.8.3. Attackers with minimal privileges (subscriber-level) can escalate their privileges to administrator-level by exploiting the missing authorization check, potentially gaining full control over the WordPress environment. This can lead to unauthorized creation or modification of user accounts, enabling persistent backdoors or insider threats. Furthermore, attackers can manipulate or delete posts and comments, damaging the integrity and availability of website content, which can harm reputation and user trust. The ability to update site options may allow attackers to alter site configurations, potentially leading to further compromise or denial of service. Given WordPress's widespread use globally, this vulnerability could be leveraged in targeted attacks against organizations relying on this plugin, including businesses, government agencies, and media outlets. The lack of known exploits in the wild currently reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially as exploit code may emerge rapidly after public disclosure.

CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
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)
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, 15:03 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats