ashikcse CITS Support svg, webp Media and TTF, OTF File Upload, Use Custom Fonts Plugin Setting cits_settings_tab cross-site request forgery
| CVSS Meta Temp Score | Current Exploit Price (≈) | CTI Interest Score |
|---|---|---|
| 4.2 | $0-$5k | 0.00 |
Summary
A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, has been found in ashikcse CITS Support svg, webp Media and TTF, OTF File Upload, Use Custom Fonts Plugin up to 4.2 on WordPress. Affected is the function cits_settings_tab of the component Setting Handler. Performing a manipulation results in cross-site request forgery.
This vulnerability is identified as CVE-2025-0807. The attack can be initiated remotely. There is not any exploit available.
Details
A vulnerability was found in ashikcse CITS Support svg, webp Media and TTF, OTF File Upload, Use Custom Fonts Plugin up to 4.2 on WordPress. It has been classified as problematic. This affects the function cits_settings_tab of the component Setting Handler. The manipulation with an unknown input leads to a cross-site request forgery vulnerability. CWE is classifying the issue as CWE-352. The web application does not, or can not, sufficiently verify whether a well-formed, valid, consistent request was intentionally provided by the user who submitted the request. This is going to have an impact on integrity. The summary by CVE is:
The CITS Support svg, webp Media and TTF,OTF File Upload, Use Custom Fonts plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 4.2. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the cits_settings_tab() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update the plugin's settings via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.
The weakness was released by lucky_buddy. It is possible to read the advisory at wordfence.com. This vulnerability is uniquely identified as CVE-2025-0807 since 01/28/2025. The exploitability is told to be easy. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. No form of authentication is needed for exploitation. It demands that the victim is doing some kind of user interaction. Technical details of the vulnerability are known, but there is no available exploit.
There is no information about possible countermeasures known. It may be suggested to replace the affected object with an alternative product.
Statistical analysis made it clear that VulDB provides the best quality for vulnerability data.
Product
Type
Vendor
Name
Version
CPE 2.3
CPE 2.2
CVSSv4
VulDB Vector: 🔍VulDB Reliability: 🔍
CVSSv3
VulDB Meta Base Score: 4.3VulDB Meta Temp Score: 4.2
VulDB Base Score: 4.3
VulDB Temp Score: 4.2
VulDB Vector: 🔍
VulDB Reliability: 🔍
CNA Base Score: 4.3
CNA Vector (Wordfence): 🔍
CVSSv2
| AV | AC | Au | C | I | A |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| Vector | Complexity | Authentication | Confidentiality | Integrity | Availability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
VulDB Base Score: 🔍
VulDB Temp Score: 🔍
VulDB Reliability: 🔍
Exploiting
Class: Cross-site request forgeryCWE: CWE-352 / CWE-862 / CWE-863
CAPEC: 🔍
ATT&CK: 🔍
Physical: No
Local: No
Remote: Yes
Availability: 🔍
Status: Not defined
EPSS Score: 🔍
EPSS Percentile: 🔍
Price Prediction: 🔍
Current Price Estimation: 🔍
| 0-Day | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Today | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
Threat Intelligence
Interest: 🔍Active Actors: 🔍
Active APT Groups: 🔍
Countermeasures
Recommended: no mitigation knownStatus: 🔍
0-Day Time: 🔍
Timeline
01/28/2025 🔍03/22/2025 🔍
03/22/2025 🔍
03/22/2025 🔍
Sources
Advisory: wordfence.comResearcher: lucky_buddy
Status: Not defined
CVE: CVE-2025-0807 (🔍)
GCVE (CVE): GCVE-0-2025-0807
GCVE (VulDB): GCVE-100-300651
Entry
Created: 03/22/2025 08:28Changes: 03/22/2025 08:28 (66)
Complete: 🔍
Cache ID: 216::103
Statistical analysis made it clear that VulDB provides the best quality for vulnerability data.
No comments yet. Languages: en.
Please log in to comment.