CVE-2024-51665
SSRF in Wpthemespace Magical Addons For Elementor ≤ 1.2.3
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:NSummary
CVE-2024-51665 is a medium-severity SSRF (CWE-918) vulnerability in Wpthemespace Magical Addons For Elementor. Its CVSS base score is 4.9 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 44th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) 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 vulnerability is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) flaw, tracked as CVE-2024-51665 with CWE-918, in the Magical Addons For Elementor WordPress plugin by Noor Alam. It affects all versions through 1.2.1 and carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 4.9.
An authenticated attacker with low privileges can exploit the issue remotely, though the attack requires high complexity. Successful exploitation allows the attacker to induce the server into making unauthorized requests, resulting in limited impacts to confidentiality and integrity within a changed security scope.
The Patchstack advisory at the referenced URL documents the SSRF vulnerability in the plugin and is the primary source for details on affected versions and remediation steps. The EPSS score has remained steady at 0.3538 with no material increase observed after disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-45470
Vulnerability Data
Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in Noor Alam Magical Addons For Elementor magical-addons-for-elementor allows Server Side Request Forgery.This issue affects Magical Addons For Elementor: from n/a through <= 1.2.1.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.3.6V1.5.3V5.3.2V10.4.7
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Information flow enforcement can restrict which destinations the server is allowed to contact on behalf of users.
Input validation directly stops untrusted URLs from being accepted and fetched without destination checks.
Boundary protection limits the network reach of server-initiated requests even if SSRF occurs.
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 development practices directly include input validation and destination allow-listing that prevent SSRF.
Runtime monitoring of web applications and services can detect anomalous outbound requests indicative of SSRF.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record SSRF flaws in web applications.
Network segmentation and egress controls can limit the damage from successful SSRF requests.
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.
Operational threat data describing SSRF campaigns can be used to tighten outbound-request allow-lists and detection rules before attackers exploit them.