CVE-2025-66428VulnerabilityPublished 22 Jan 2026Updated 23 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-66428: wordpress-toolkit · n/a

Affects wordpress-toolkitSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.8 High : upgrade to 6.9.1 soon.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.8High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 39% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 6.9.1

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 22 Jan 2026
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

Upgrade plesk/wordpress-toolkit to 6.9.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Pleskplesk/wordpress-toolkit`pkg:deb/plesk/wordpress-toolkit`Other threats	Affected <6.9.1	Fixed in 6.9.1

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

1. Immediately update WebPros WordPress Toolkit to version 6.9.1 or later once available to address the vulnerability. 2. Restrict network access to the WordPress Toolkit management interfaces using firewalls or VPNs to limit exposure to trusted administrators only. 3. Audit and enforce strict user privilege policies within the toolkit and underlying systems to minimize the risk of privilege escalation. 4. Monitor logs for unusual directory access patterns or privilege escalation attempts related to WordPress directories. 5. Implement file system permissions that prevent unauthorized modification or traversal of WordPress directories. 6. Consider deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with rules targeting suspicious path traversal or privilege escalation behaviors. 7. Stay informed through official WebPros security advisories for any patches or additional mitigation guidance.

Description

CVE-2025-66428 is a high-severity vulnerability in WebPros WordPress Toolkit versions prior to 6.9.1 that allows privilege escalation due to improper handling of WordPress directory names. The flaw enables attackers with limited privileges to escalate their access rights, potentially gaining full control over the affected system. The vulnerability has a CVSS score of 8.8, indicating a critical impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability without requiring user interaction. Although no known exploits are currently in the wild, the vulnerability poses a significant risk to organizations using the affected toolkit for WordPress management. European organizations relying on WordPress Toolkit for website administration should prioritize patching to prevent exploitation. Countries with large WordPress hosting markets and significant web infrastructure, such as Germany, the United Kingdom, and France, are particularly at risk. Mitigation involves promptly updating to version 6.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized privilege escalation on servers managing WordPress sites, potentially resulting in full administrative control over web hosting environments. This could compromise sensitive customer data, disrupt website availability, and allow attackers to deploy malicious content or pivot to other internal systems. Given the widespread use of WordPress and WebPros Toolkit in Europe, especially among hosting providers and digital agencies, the impact could be extensive, affecting data confidentiality, operational integrity, and service availability. The vulnerability's network-based exploitability means attackers can attempt remote exploitation, increasing risk for organizations with exposed management interfaces. The absence of known exploits currently provides a window for proactive defense, but the high CVSS score underscores the urgency of mitigation to prevent potential future attacks.

Summary

CVE-2025-66428 is a vulnerability identified in WebPros WordPress Toolkit versions before 6.9.1 that arises from improper validation and handling of WordPress directory names. This flaw falls under CWE-269 (Improper Privilege Management) and CWE-22 (Path Traversal), indicating that attackers can manipulate directory paths to escalate their privileges within the system. The vulnerability allows an attacker who already has some level of access (privilege level: low) to gain higher privileges without requiring any user interaction, exploiting the way directory names are processed by the toolkit. The CVSS 3.1 score of 8.8 reflects a network attack vector with low attack complexity, requiring only privileges but no user interaction, and results in high impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The toolkit is widely used by hosting providers and administrators to manage WordPress installations, making this vulnerability critical as it could lead to full system compromise or unauthorized administrative control over multiple WordPress sites. Although no public exploits have been reported yet, the nature of the vulnerability and its ease of exploitation make it a significant threat.

CWE-269Improper Privilege Management (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Consider following the principle of separation of privilege. Require multiple conditions to be met before permitting access to a system resource.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Restful Privilege Elevation (opens in a new tab)
Privilege Abuse (opens in a new tab)
Privilege Escalation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

docs.plesk.com/release-notes/obsidian/change-log/ (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 30 Jan 2026, 10:04 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-269, CWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats