CWE-96
Improper Neutralization of Directives in Statically Saved Code ('Static Code Injection')
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes code syntax before inserting the input into an executable resource, such as a library, configuration file, or template.
CVE-2025-7825 (GCVE-0-2025-7825)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5
- CWE-96 - Improper Neutralization of Directives in Statically Saved Code ('Static Code Injection')
| Vendor | Product | Version | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| wpt00ls | Schema Plugin For Divi, Gutenberg & Shortcodes |
Version: * ≤ 4.3.2 |
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2025-7825",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "no"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2025-10-03T13:58:27.244687Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-10-03T13:58:33.363Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"product": "Schema Plugin For Divi, Gutenberg \u0026 Shortcodes",
"vendor": "wpt00ls",
"versions": [
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "4.3.2",
"status": "affected",
"version": "*",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "finder",
"value": "ch4r0n"
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "The Schema Plugin For Divi, Gutenberg \u0026 Shortcodes plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Object Instantiation in all versions up to, and including, 4.3.2 via deserialization of untrusted input via the wpt_schema_breadcrumbs shortcode. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and above, to inject a PHP Object. No known POP chain is present in the vulnerable software, which means this vulnerability has no impact unless another plugin or theme containing a POP chain is installed on the site. If a POP chain is present via an additional plugin or theme installed on the target system, it may allow the attacker to perform actions like delete arbitrary files, retrieve sensitive data, or execute code depending on the POP chain present."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"baseScore": 6.3,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"version": "3.1"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-96",
"description": "CWE-96 Improper Neutralization of Directives in Statically Saved Code (\u0027Static Code Injection\u0027)",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-10-03T11:17:21.024Z",
"orgId": "b15e7b5b-3da4-40ae-a43c-f7aa60e62599",
"shortName": "Wordfence"
},
"references": [
{
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/ccb81a3e-744f-4a16-ad9b-1b9dbc09571c?source=cve"
},
{
"url": "https://wordpress.org/plugins/wp-structured-data-schema/"
}
],
"timeline": [
{
"lang": "en",
"time": "2025-10-02T22:14:01.000+00:00",
"value": "Disclosed"
}
],
"title": "Schema Plugin For Divi, Gutenberg \u0026 Shortcodes \u003c= 4.3.2 - Authenticated (Contributor+) Object Instantiation"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "b15e7b5b-3da4-40ae-a43c-f7aa60e62599",
"assignerShortName": "Wordfence",
"cveId": "CVE-2025-7825",
"datePublished": "2025-10-03T11:17:21.024Z",
"dateReserved": "2025-07-18T17:48:11.499Z",
"dateUpdated": "2025-10-03T13:58:33.363Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.1"
}
Mitigation ID: MIT-5
Phase: Implementation
Strategy: Input Validation
Description:
- 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.
- When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."
- Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
Mitigation
Phase: Implementation
Strategy: Output Encoding
Description:
- Perform proper output validation and escaping to neutralize all code syntax from data written to code files.
CAPEC-35: Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files
An attack of this type exploits a system's trust in configuration and resource files. When the executable loads the resource (such as an image file or configuration file) the attacker has modified the file to either execute malicious code directly or manipulate the target process (e.g. application server) to execute based on the malicious configuration parameters. Since systems are increasingly interrelated mashing up resources from local and remote sources the possibility of this attack occurring is high.
CAPEC-73: User-Controlled Filename
An attack of this type involves an adversary inserting malicious characters (such as a XSS redirection) into a filename, directly or indirectly that is then used by the target software to generate HTML text or other potentially executable content. Many websites rely on user-generated content and dynamically build resources like files, filenames, and URL links directly from user supplied data. In this attack pattern, the attacker uploads code that can execute in the client browser and/or redirect the client browser to a site that the attacker owns. All XSS attack payload variants can be used to pass and exploit these vulnerabilities.
CAPEC-77: Manipulating User-Controlled Variables
This attack targets user controlled variables (DEBUG=1, PHP Globals, and So Forth). An adversary can override variables leveraging user-supplied, untrusted query variables directly used on the application server without any data sanitization. In extreme cases, the adversary can change variables controlling the business logic of the application. For instance, in languages like PHP, a number of poorly set default configurations may allow the user to override variables.
CAPEC-81: Web Server Logs Tampering
Web Logs Tampering attacks involve an attacker injecting, deleting or otherwise tampering with the contents of web logs typically for the purposes of masking other malicious behavior. Additionally, writing malicious data to log files may target jobs, filters, reports, and other agents that process the logs in an asynchronous attack pattern. This pattern of attack is similar to "Log Injection-Tampering-Forging" except that in this case, the attack is targeting the logs of the web server and not the application.
CAPEC-85: AJAX Footprinting
This attack utilizes the frequent client-server roundtrips in Ajax conversation to scan a system. While Ajax does not open up new vulnerabilities per se, it does optimize them from an attacker point of view. A common first step for an attacker is to footprint the target environment to understand what attacks will work. Since footprinting relies on enumeration, the conversational pattern of rapid, multiple requests and responses that are typical in Ajax applications enable an attacker to look for many vulnerabilities, well-known ports, network locations and so on. The knowledge gained through Ajax fingerprinting can be used to support other attacks, such as XSS.