CVE-2023-41243
Access Control in Wpvivid Migration\, Backup\, Staging ≤ 0.9.91
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-2023-41243 is a high-severity Improper Privilege Management (CWE-269) vulnerability in Wpvivid Migration\, Backup\, Staging. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, ranked in the top 47% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-2 (Account Management) and AC-24 (Access Control Decisions) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-45760
Vulnerability Data
Improper Privilege Management vulnerability in WPvivid Team WPvivid Backup and Migration allows Privilege Escalation.This issue affects WPvivid Backup and Migration: from n/a through 0.9.90.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
AC-3 directly requires enforcement of authorization decisions on every access request, structurally eliminating missing authorization checks.
Account management directly governs assignment and tracking of privileges so proper implementation stops the weakness from being introduced.
Requiring explicit access-control decisions ensures privileges are evaluated rather than assumed or omitted.
AC-25 requires a tamperproof, always-invoked reference monitor that ensures authorization checks cannot be omitted.
Separation of duties constrains how privileges may be assigned, reducing the chance of overly broad actor control.
Least privilege is the direct countermeasure to improper privilege management; implementing it eliminates the root cause.
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.
By requiring competent outsiders to verify that every function enforces the need-to-know principle, the control lowers the likelihood that missing authorization checks persist undetected.
A.5.8 integrates risk assessment, requirements elicitation and governance into the project lifecycle so that authorization needs can be identified and specified; it does not itself perform or enforce authorization checks, so the missing-authorization weakness can still be present and exploitable.
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.
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.