CVE-2025-5998VulnerabilityPublished 14 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-5998: PPWP (WordPress plugin) · Improper Handling of Insufficient Permissions or Privileges

Affects PPWP (WordPress plugin)Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium · fixed in 1.9.11 : update PPWP (WordPress plugin) when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 24% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.9.11

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
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: 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: 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 14 Aug 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 2026-10-25.

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
PPWP – Password Protect Pages	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately assess whether they use the PPWP – Password Protect Pages plugin and identify the plugin version. If running a vulnerable version prior to 1.9.11, they should upgrade to the latest patched version as soon as it becomes available. If you cannot patch yet, organizations should consider the following mitigations: 1) Restrict user registrations to trusted individuals only, minimizing the number of subscriber-level accounts. 2) Implement strong account monitoring and anomaly detection to identify suspicious subscriber account activity. 3) Disable or restrict REST API access for subscriber roles using custom code snippets or security plugins that control REST API permissions. 4) Review and limit the content protected by the plugin, avoiding storing highly sensitive data behind this mechanism until patched. 5) Employ Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with rules to detect and block suspicious REST API requests that attempt to access protected content. 6) Educate site administrators and content managers about the vulnerability and the importance of timely updates. 7) Conduct regular audits of user roles and permissions to ensure least privilege principles are enforced. These targeted mitigations go beyond generic advice by focusing on controlling REST API access and subscriber role management, which are key to limiting exploitation of this specific vulnerability.

Description

The PPWP – Password Protect Pages WordPress plugin before version 1.9.11 allows to put the site content behind a password authorization, however users with subscriber or greater roles can view content via the REST API.

Impact

For European organizations using the PPWP – Password Protect Pages plugin on WordPress sites, this vulnerability poses a significant confidentiality risk. Protected content intended to be shielded behind password authorization can be accessed by any authenticated user with subscriber or higher roles, which may include registered users, customers, or even compromised accounts. This could lead to leakage of sensitive or proprietary information, intellectual property, or customer data. Organizations in sectors such as finance, healthcare, legal, and government that rely on WordPress for content management and use this plugin for access control are particularly at risk. The exposure could result in reputational damage, regulatory non-compliance (e.g., GDPR violations due to unauthorized data access), and potential legal consequences. Since the vulnerability exploits REST API endpoints, automated scanning or scripted attacks could be used to enumerate and extract protected content at scale. The lack of a patch at the time of publication increases the window of exposure. However, the requirement for authenticated subscriber-level access somewhat limits the attack surface to users who have registered accounts, reducing risk from anonymous external attackers but increasing risk from insider threats or compromised user accounts.

CWE-280Improper Handling of Insufficient Permissions or Privileges (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when it has insufficient privileges to access resources or functionality as specified by their permissions. This may cause it to follow unexpected code paths that may leave the product in an invalid state.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
Implementation
Always check to see if you have successfully accessed a resource or system functionality, and use proper error handling if it is unsuccessful. Do this even when you are operating in a highly privileged mode, because errors or environmental conditions might still cause a failure.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

wpscan.com/vulnerability/17bad181-6cea-445e-b91c-22415d90743e/ (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 14 Aug 2025, 09:17 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-280

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats