Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/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-2024-3054 is a high-severity Deserialization of Untrusted Data (CWE-502) vulnerability in Wpvivid Migration\, Backup\, Staging. Its CVSS base score is 7.2 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked in the top 1% 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 WPvivid Backup & Migration plugin for WordPress is affected by a PHAR deserialization vulnerability in all versions through 0.9.99. The flaw exists in the wpvividstg_get_custom_exclude_path_free action handler, which accepts untrusted input via the tree_node[node][id] parameter without adequate path validation, allowing a PHAR wrapper to trigger object deserialization (CWE-502). The issue carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 7.2.
An authenticated attacker with administrative privileges can supply a malicious PHAR reference to invoke arbitrary PHP objects. Although the plugin itself contains no POP chain, the presence of a suitable chain from another installed plugin or theme could enable deletion of arbitrary files, disclosure of sensitive data, or remote code execution.
Public references point to a patched changeset on the WordPress plugin repository and a detailed advisory from Wordfence that identify the affected code path and confirm the availability of an updated version. The EPSS score has remained at 0.2050 with no indicated post-disclosure increase.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-31661
Vulnerability Data
WPvivid Backup & Migration Plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to PHAR Deserialization in all versions up to, and including, 0.9.99 via deserialization of untrusted input at the wpvividstg_get_custom_exclude_path_free action. This is due to the plugin not providing sufficient path validation…
more
on the tree_node[node][id] parameter. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with admin-level access and above, to call files using a PHAR wrapper that will deserialize the data and call arbitrary PHP Objects. No POP chain is present in the vulnerable plugin. If a POP chain is present via an additional plugin or theme installed on the target system, it could allow the attacker to delete arbitrary files, retrieve sensitive data, or execute code.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can uncover deserialization flaws before deployment.
Input validation directly stops deserialization of untrusted data by ensuring inputs are valid before processing.
Engineering principles such as safe deserialization and input sanitization structurally prevent the weakness from being introduced.
Integrity verification tools can detect malformed or tampered serialized data after the fact.
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.
PR.PS-02 addresses only post-deployment updates/patching and cannot prevent introduction of unsafe deserialization code, yet it can remediate some instances when the flaw exists in outdated libraries or components.
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.
Security testing includes validation of deserialization routines and the use of untrusted data, reducing the likelihood that unsafe object reconstruction will be deployed.
Requiring vetted libraries, regular updates and SAST before release reduces the likelihood that deserialization logic will accept and act on attacker-controlled serialized objects.
Regular scanning of third-party libraries and timely patching reduce the likelihood that unsafe deserialization vulnerabilities remain active.