CVE-2025-9543VulnerabilityPublished 5 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-9543: FlexTable (WordPress plugin) · Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)

Affects FlexTable (WordPress plugin)Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.5 Low : upgrade to 3.19.2 when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.5Low

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 7% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.19.2

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

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

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 5 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 FlexTable (WordPress plugin) to 3.19.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
FlexTable	Affected <3.19.2	Fixed in 3.19.2

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-9543, European organizations should immediately update the FlexTable plugin to version 3.19.2 or later once available, as this version addresses the sanitization and escaping issues. If you cannot patch yet, restrict administrative access to trusted personnel only and monitor admin activities for suspicious behavior. Implement additional input validation and sanitization controls on data imported from external sources like Google Sheets, potentially using custom filters or security plugins that enforce strict content policies. Deploy Content Security Policies (CSP) to limit the execution of unauthorized scripts on WordPress sites. Regularly audit multisite WordPress configurations to ensure that security capabilities like unfiltered_html are properly enforced and complemented by other security layers. Conduct security awareness training for administrators to recognize and avoid risky behaviors that could lead to exploitation. Finally, maintain regular backups and incident response plans to quickly recover from any potential compromise resulting from this vulnerability.

Description

The FlexTable WordPress plugin before 3.19.2 does not sanitise and escape the imported links from Google Sheet cells, which could allow high privilege users such as admin to perform Stored Cross-Site Scripting attacks even when the unfiltered_html capability is disallowed (for example in multisite setup).

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk especially for those relying on WordPress sites with the FlexTable plugin integrated for data import from Google Sheets. The stored XSS can compromise the confidentiality of sensitive data by enabling session hijacking or credential theft of administrators. Integrity can be affected through unauthorized content modification or injection of malicious scripts that alter site behavior. Availability might be impacted if attackers use the vulnerability to deface sites or disrupt normal operations. Multisite WordPress setups, common in large organizations and educational institutions across Europe, are particularly vulnerable since the unfiltered_html capability is often disabled to mitigate risks, yet this vulnerability bypasses that control. The threat is amplified in sectors with high-value targets such as finance, government, and healthcare, where WordPress is used for public-facing or internal portals. The lack of known exploits in the wild suggests a window for proactive mitigation, but the presence of high-privilege exploitation potential means that insider threats or compromised admin accounts could be leveraged to exploit this flaw. Overall, the impact on European organizations could range from data breaches to reputational damage and operational disruption.

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

wpscan.com/vulnerability/6cc212f4-aa61-409a-b257-9c920956a401/ (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 5 Jan 2026, 06:29 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-79

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats