VulnerabilityPublished 10 Mar 2026Updated 11 Mar 2026

CVE-2025-70129: PluXml · Guessable CAPTCHA

Affects PluXmlSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 22% 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:N/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
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: 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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within 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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 10 Mar 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 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
GitHubpluxml/PluXml`pkg:github/pluxml/PluXml`Other threats	Affected <=5.8.22	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-70129, organizations should first consider upgrading PluXml to a version where this vulnerability is patched once available. In the absence of an official patch, administrators should disable the built-in anti-spam captcha functionality to prevent exposure of captcha tokens. Implementing alternative, more secure anti-spam measures such as third-party CAPTCHA services (e.g., Google reCAPTCHA) or behavioral-based spam detection can provide stronger protection. Additionally, deploying web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules to detect and block automated comment submissions can reduce spam flooding. Rate limiting comment submissions per IP address and requiring user registration or email verification before allowing comments can further reduce automated abuse. Monitoring logs for unusual comment submission patterns and employing content filtering to detect spam keywords or URLs will help maintain comment quality. Regularly reviewing and updating security configurations and educating site administrators about this vulnerability are also important steps.

Description

If the anti spam-captcha functionality in PluXml versions 5.8.22 and earlier is enabled, a captcha challenge is generated with a format that can be automatically recognized for articles, such that an automated script is able to solve this anti-spam mechanism trivially and publish spam comments. The details of captcha challenge are exposed within document body of articles with comments & anti spam-captcha functionalities enabled, including "capcha-letter", "capcha-word" and "capcha-token" which can be used to construct a valid post request to publish a comment. As such, attackers can flood articles with automated spam comments, especially if there are no other web defenses available.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-70129 is the compromise of the anti-spam defenses on affected PluXml-powered websites, leading to automated spam comment flooding. This can overwhelm site administrators with spam content, degrade the quality and credibility of user-generated content, and potentially expose visitors to malicious links or phishing attempts embedded in spam comments. The vulnerability affects the integrity and availability of the comment system by allowing unauthorized automated submissions. While it does not directly compromise confidentiality or system control, the resulting spam can indirectly harm organizational reputation and user trust. For organizations relying on PluXml for content management, especially those with active user engagement through comments, this vulnerability can increase operational costs due to the need for manual spam moderation or additional filtering tools. The ease of exploitation and lack of authentication requirements mean that attackers can rapidly scale spam campaigns, potentially affecting large numbers of sites globally. This may also impact SEO rankings and user engagement metrics negatively.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 10 Mar 2026, 19:46 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-804

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats