VulnerabilityPublished 23 Sep 2025Updated 1 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-58674: Automattic WordPress · Cross-site Scripting

Affects Automattic WordPressSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 15:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 11% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
Availability: Low

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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: 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: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 23 Sep 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
Automattic WordPress	Affected 4.7 – 6.8 22 affected builds	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

European organizations should implement a multi-layered mitigation strategy. First, restrict Author and higher privileges strictly to trusted users and regularly audit user roles and permissions to minimize the attack surface. Implement strong authentication mechanisms, such as multi-factor authentication (MFA), to reduce the risk of account compromise. Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules tailored to detect and block XSS payloads targeting WordPress. Monitor logs for unusual activities related to content creation or modification by authors. Until an official patch is released, consider deploying virtual patching via WAF or security plugins that sanitize inputs and outputs. Educate content authors about safe content practices and the risks of injecting untrusted scripts. Regularly update WordPress and all plugins/themes once patches become available. Conduct security assessments and penetration testing focused on CMS components to identify any residual risks. Finally, implement Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to restrict the execution of unauthorized scripts in browsers.

Description

Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in Automattic WordPress allows Stored XSS. WordPress core security team is aware of the issue and working on a fix. This is low severity vulnerability that requires an attacker to have Author or higher user privileges to execute the attack vector.This issue affects WordPress: from 6.8 through 6.8.2, from 6.7 through 6.7.3, from 6.6 through 6.6.3, from 6.5 through 6.5.6, from 6.4 through 6.4.6, from 6.3 through 6.3.6, from 6.2 through 6.2.7, from 6.1 through 6.1.8, from 6.0 through 6.0.10, from 5.9 through 5.9.11, from 5.8 through 5.8.11, from 5.7 through 5.7.13, from 5.6 through 5.6.15, from 5.5 through 5.5.16, from 5.4 through 5.4.17, from 5.3 through 5.3.19, from 5.2 through 5.2.22, from 5.1 through 5.1.20, from 5.0 through 5.0.23, from 4.9 through 4.9.27, from 4.8 through 4.8.26, from 4.7 through 4.7.30.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability can be substantial, particularly for businesses, media outlets, e-commerce platforms, and governmental websites that use WordPress as their CMS. Exploitation could lead to unauthorized script execution, resulting in data theft, session hijacking, or defacement of websites, which can damage reputation and erode user trust. Since the vulnerability requires Author-level privileges, insider threats or compromised accounts pose the greatest risk. The potential for privilege escalation or lateral movement within the CMS environment could lead to broader compromise of sensitive data or disruption of services. Additionally, the changed scope (S:C) implies that the attack could affect components beyond the initially vulnerable module, potentially impacting integrated plugins or themes. Given the GDPR regulations in Europe, any data breach resulting from exploitation could lead to significant regulatory fines and legal consequences. The medium severity rating suggests that while the vulnerability is not trivial, it is not among the most critical; however, the widespread deployment of WordPress in Europe amplifies the risk profile.

CWE-79Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #1OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.
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 · Architecture and Design
Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages.
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XSS Using MIME Type Mismatch (opens in a new tab)
DOM-Based XSS (opens in a new tab)
Reflected XSS (opens in a new tab)
Stored XSS (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) (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 23 Sep 2025, 18:53 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-79

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats