CVE-2025-6380VulnerabilityPublished 24 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-6380: ONLYOFFICE Docs (WordPress plugin) · Missing Authorization

Affects ONLYOFFICE Docs (WordPress plugin)Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.8 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.8Critical

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

EPSS: 0.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 57% 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:H/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
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: 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: 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 24 Jul 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
onlyoffice ONLYOFFICE Docs	Affected =1.1.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-6380, organizations should immediately upgrade ONLYOFFICE Docs WordPress plugin to a version where the vulnerability is patched once available. Until a patch is released, implement the following specific mitigations: 1) Restrict access to the oo.callback REST endpoint by applying web application firewall (WAF) rules that block unauthenticated requests or requests from untrusted IP addresses. 2) Disable or limit the use of the ONLYOFFICE Docs plugin if feasible, especially on publicly accessible WordPress sites. 3) Monitor web server and application logs for suspicious access patterns targeting the oo.callback endpoint or unusual attachment ID requests. 4) Enforce strict WordPress user role and capability management to minimize the impact of compromised accounts. 5) Consider isolating ONLYOFFICE Docs functionality behind VPN or internal networks to reduce exposure. 6) Educate administrators and users about the risk and encourage vigilance for unusual account activity. These targeted mitigations go beyond generic advice by focusing on access control and monitoring specific to the vulnerable endpoint.

Description

The ONLYOFFICE Docs plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Privilege Escalation due to missing authorization within its oo.callback REST endpoint in versions 1.1.0 to 2.2.0. The plugin’s permission callback only verifies that the supplied, encrypted attachment ID maps to an existing attachment post, but does not verify the requester’s identity or capabilities. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to log in as an arbitrary user.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2025-6380 is severe for organizations using ONLYOFFICE Docs integrated with WordPress. An attacker can gain unauthorized access to arbitrary user accounts without authentication, leading to full compromise of user data and permissions. This can result in unauthorized disclosure of sensitive documents, unauthorized modifications or deletions of content, and potential disruption of document collaboration workflows. The breach of confidentiality and integrity can damage organizational reputation, lead to regulatory compliance violations, and cause operational downtime. Since the vulnerability affects a widely used document collaboration plugin, organizations relying on ONLYOFFICE Docs for internal or external document management are at significant risk. The vulnerability's network-exploitable nature and lack of required user interaction increase the likelihood of automated attacks or mass exploitation attempts once public exploit code becomes available.

CWE-862Missing Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #4OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
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)
Attack patterns
Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws (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 26 Feb 2026, 15:32 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-862

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats