CVE-2025-12094VulnerabilityPublished 31 Oct 2025

The OOPSpam Anti-Spam: Spam Protection for WordPress Forms & Comments (No CAPTCHA) plugin for WordPress is vulnerable

Source GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2025-12094· Medium 5.3

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 23:29 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

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 31 Oct 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 29 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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.

ghsa-4qw6-7g5m-4mvh

What to do

AI-suggested

Users should monitor the vendor's advisory for updates and consider implementing additional server-side validation of forwarded headers or restricting trusted proxy IPs to mitigate spoofing risks. Until a fix is available, relying solely on client-supplied forwarded headers for IP-based controls is not recommended.

Description

The OOPSpam Anti-Spam plugin for WordPress versions up to and including 1.2.53 is vulnerable to IP Header Spoofing. The plugin trusts client-controlled forwarded headers such as CF-Connecting-IP and X-Forwarded-For without verifying their legitimacy. This allows unauthenticated attackers to spoof their IP address and bypass IP-based security controls like blocked IP lists and rate limiting.

Impact

Attackers can spoof their IP addresses by manipulating HTTP forwarded headers, enabling them to bypass IP-based security measures such as IP blocking and rate limiting. This can facilitate spam or other abusive activities by circumventing protections intended to restrict or monitor client IPs. There is no direct confidentiality or availability impact reported.

Summary

This vulnerability in the OOPSpam Anti-Spam plugin arises because it accepts and trusts HTTP forwarded headers from clients without validating that these headers come from trusted proxies. As a result, attackers can supply arbitrary IP addresses in these headers to evade IP-based restrictions implemented by the plugin. The issue affects all versions up to and including 1.2.53. The CVSS 3.1 base score is 5.3, reflecting a medium severity with network attack vector, low attack complexity, no privileges or user interaction required, and an impact limited to integrity.

CWE-693Protection Mechanism Failure (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Tracing (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (opens in a new tab)
Encryption Brute Forcing (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 29 Oct 2026, 23:29 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-693

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats