Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2023-6634 is a high-severity Argument Injection (CWE-88) vulnerability in Thimpress Learnpress. Its CVSS base score is 8.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 5% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
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 LearnPress plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to command injection in all versions up to and including 4.2.5.7 via the get_content function. The root cause is unsafe use of PHP's call_user_func with attacker-controlled input, which maps to CWE-88 and CWE-77 and carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 8.1.
Unauthenticated remote attackers can invoke any public function that accepts a single parameter, enabling them to achieve arbitrary code execution on the WordPress site without requiring authentication or user interaction.
Public references from Wordfence and the WordPress plugin Trac show that the issue was fixed in changeset 3013957, which should be applied to bring installations to a patched release. The associated EPSS score remains elevated near 0.91 with no documented low-to-high trajectory after disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-58857
Vulnerability Data
The LearnPress plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Command Injection in all versions up to, and including, 4.2.5.7 via the get_content function. This is due to the plugin making use of the call_user_func function with user input. This makes it…
more
possible for unauthenticated attackers to execute any public function with one parameter, which could result in remote code execution.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.2.3V1.2.5V1.2.8V1.2.9
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing can discover argument-injection flaws in command-construction code but does not stop their introduction.
Input validation directly stops construction of command strings containing unneutralized delimiters or injected arguments.
Secure engineering principles include proper neutralization and safe command construction practices.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly require proper input validation and command construction to prevent argument injection.
Runtime monitoring of software and data can detect anomalous command execution resulting from injection.
Identifying recorded vulnerabilities enables remediation of command-injection flaws before exploitation.
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.
Secure coding standards require proper escaping and parameterization of commands, directly eliminating CWE-77.
Security testing can detect argument injection but does not prevent it at the source.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and command construction practices that directly prevent argument injection.
Application security requirements include explicit rules for safe command-line argument handling and escaping.
Secure architecture principles discourage unsafe command invocation patterns and favor safer APIs.
Environment separation limits the blast radius of an exploited command injection but does not prevent the flaw itself.