CVE-2023-2833
Wpdeveloper Reviewx ≤ 1.6.13
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2023-2833 is a high-severity Improper Privilege Management (CWE-269) vulnerability in Wpdeveloper Reviewx. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, ranked in the top 3% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
The ReviewX plugin for WordPress, in versions through 1.6.13, is affected by a privilege escalation vulnerability (CWE-269) caused by missing authorization checks on the rx_set_screen_options function. The flaw permits an authenticated user to supply the wp_screen_options[option] and wp_screen_options[value] parameters when updating screen options, thereby altering the user’s assigned role. The issue carries a CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.8.
An attacker holding only subscriber-level access can exploit the weakness over the network without user interaction, allowing the account to be escalated to an administrative role and granting full control over the WordPress site, including the ability to install plugins, modify content, or create additional privileged accounts.
Public references, including the Wordfence advisory and the plugin’s Trac changeset, indicate that the vendor released version 1.6.14 to restrict the function and that site owners should update immediately; the same sources also recommend verifying user roles after patching. The associated EPSS score has remained essentially flat near 0.27 with no material post-disclosure increase.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-34284
Vulnerability Data
The ReviewX plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to privilege escalation in versions up to, and including, 1.6.13 due to insufficient restriction on the 'rx_set_screen_options' function. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with minimal permissions such as a subscriber, to…
more
modify their user role by supplying the 'wp_screen_options[option]' and 'wp_screen_options[value]' parameters during a screen option update.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Likely Mitigating Controls AI
Per-CVE control mapping for this CVE has not run yet; the list below is derived from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry.
Policy addresses roles, responsibilities, and privilege management to prevent improper privilege assignments.
Access supervision ensures privileges are assigned and managed without improper escalation or retention.
Assigning group/role memberships and access authorizations (privileges) while reviewing accounts addresses improper privilege management.
Enforces proper privilege management by requiring all decisions through the verified reference monitor.
By mandating division of duties across roles, the control enforces proper privilege management and prevents a single entity from controlling an entire sensitive process.
Implements core proper privilege management by restricting to only required rights.
Policy requires training on privilege management and least privilege, making it harder to exploit improper privilege management weaknesses.
Training covers proper privilege management practices, making incorrect privilege assignments less likely.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
A.5.15 directly mandates determining access requirements, defining/enforcing topic-specific access control policy, assigning rights/restrictions by entity/role, consistency with classification, need-to-know, privileged access restrictions, segregation, formal authorization, and dynamic rules — which stops most improper privilege management from being exploitable; bounded remainder is flawed implementation of those rules (e.g. incorrect mapping or enforcement bugs).
A.5.18 directly governs the provisioning, review, modification and timely revocation of access rights (including for role changes, termination and privilege levels), which stops most improper privilege spheres from being exploitable even if the assignment flaw exists; the bounded remainder is flaws in the underlying enforcement mechanism itself (e.g. AC-3/A.8.3)
Defining and communicating authorization levels for each role limits the assignment of excessive or unnecessary privileges.
Logging every use of privileges and protecting those records makes it harder for an attacker who has obtained elevated rights to operate without leaving evidence.
A.8.2 directly controls the identification, allocation, review, expiry, temporary use, and separation of privileged rights per policy, which prevents most improper privilege management (CWE-269) by design; the bounded remainder is flawed tracking/checking logic inside the product's own enforcement code (the AC-3 slice of 269).
A.8.27 mandates security-by-design principles including least privilege, default deny, fail securely, defence in depth, security architecture integration, hardening, and zero-trust verification of every request; these directly stop most improper privilege spheres from being exploitable even if the assignment flaw remains, with a bounded remainder (e.g. certain legacy or safety-overridden controls).
Hardening callouts derived
DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.