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-2024-6497 is a high-severity SQL Injection (CWE-89) vulnerability in Squirrly Seo Plugin By Squirrly Seo. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Browser Session Hijacking (T1185); ranked in the top 4% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
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 SEO Plugin by Squirrly SEO for WordPress contains a stored cross-site scripting vulnerability in the url parameter that affects all versions through 12.3.19. The flaw stems from insufficient input sanitization and output escaping, allowing malicious script content to be persisted and later rendered in plugin-generated pages. CVE-2024-43286 is noted as a duplicate of the same issue.
Authenticated users with Contributor-level access or higher can supply crafted url values that store executable scripts. When any visitor loads an affected page the injected code runs in the victim's browser, enabling theft of session tokens, account takeover, or other actions within the WordPress site context. The reported CVSS 3.1 score is 8.8.
Public references point to a patched changeset (3121853) in the plugin repository and an advisory from Wordfence that recommend updating to a fixed release. Site administrators should apply the latest version of the Squirrly SEO plugin and verify that Contributor roles cannot create or edit content that bypasses the corrected escaping routines.
EPSS probability rose from lower values to a recorded peak of 0.2757 before receding to the current 0.2289, indicating measurable post-disclosure exploitation interest that warrants renewed monitoring.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-47582
Vulnerability Data
The SEO Plugin by Squirrly SEO plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the ‘url’ parameter in all versions up to, and including, 12.3.19 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for…
more
authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page. CVE-2024-43286 appears to be a duplicate of this issue.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.1.2V1.3.2V6.2.5
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover SQLi flaws before deployment but does not stop their introduction.
Input validation directly stops untrusted data from reaching SQL query construction without neutralization.
Output filtering can catch or sanitize unneutralized script content before it is served to users.
Secure engineering principles require parameterized queries and input sanitization that structurally eliminate SQLi.
System monitoring can identify attempted SQLi exploitation via anomalous queries after the weakness exists.
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 target injection flaws during coding and review so largely prevent CWE-89 introduction, yet the single broad outcome leaves residual risk from incomplete neutralization techniques or missed edge cases.
Training raises developer awareness of SQLi risks and can reduce introduction likelihood (partial) but removes none of the actual coding flaw's risk by itself since technical neutralization is still required.
Patching and EOL replacement can remediate known XSS instances in libraries or frameworks (partial) but do nothing to enforce input neutralization in application code (none).
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.
The same secure-coding and static-analysis activities surface missing neutralization of SQL metacharacters before the system is accepted.
Early warnings and shared best-practice information help organizations apply the latest remediation techniques against SQL-injection vulnerabilities.
Threat-intelligence feeds that surface new SQL-injection campaigns enable rapid updates to query-construction defenses and detection signatures before exploitation occurs.
Secure-coding rules and security testing phases mandate the use of parameterized queries or equivalent escaping, preventing the construction of dynamic SQL statements from untrusted input.
Language-specific secure coding rules, peer review and SAST together prevent the construction of SQL statements from untrusted data without proper parameterization or escaping.