CVE-2025-0366
Artbees Jupiter X Core ≤ 4.8.8
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-2025-0366 is a high-severity PHP Remote File Inclusion (CWE-98) vulnerability in Artbees Jupiter X Core. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked in the top 25% 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 Jupiter X Core plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to local file inclusion that leads to remote code execution in all versions through 4.8.7. The flaw resides in the get_svg() function and is tracked as CWE-98. It carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 8.8.
Authenticated users with Contributor privileges or higher can exploit the issue by creating a form that accepts SVG uploads, uploading a file containing malicious PHP, and then referencing that file inside a post. Successful exploitation grants the ability to include and execute arbitrary server-side files, bypassing access controls and obtaining code execution.
Public references include WordPress plugin-trac changesets that address the vulnerable code paths in ajax-handler.php and video.php, together with analysis published by Stealthcopter and a detailed entry from Wordfence.
The associated EPSS score rose from a low baseline to a recorded peak of 0.0121, indicating that exploitation interest increased after disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-1629
Vulnerability Data
The Jupiter X Core plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Local File Inclusion to Remote Code Execution in all versions up to, and including, 4.8.7 via the get_svg() function. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and…
more
above, to include and execute arbitrary files on the server, allowing the execution of any PHP code in those files. This can be used to bypass access controls, obtain sensitive data, or achieve code execution. In this specific case, an attacker can create a form that allows SVG uploads, upload an SVG file with malicious content and then include the SVG file in a post to achieve remote code execution. This means it is relatively easy to gain remote code execution as a contributor-level user and above by default.
- 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 static analysis can discover missing filename restrictions before deployment.
Validating all inputs before they reach include/require statements directly stops untrusted filenames from being used.
Enforcing access authorizations on resources limits what an included file can reach even if a bad name is supplied.
Information-flow rules can block the loading of external or unauthorized files into the PHP process.
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 such as input validation and allow-listing of include paths directly prevent the weakness.
Hardened runtime configuration (e.g., allow_url_include=off) directly blocks RFI even if code is flawed.
Execution restrictions can prevent the remote payload from running, while eliminating the weakness reduces the need for such controls.
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 can detect RFI but does not prevent the weakness by itself.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and safe include/require patterns that directly prevent remote file inclusion.
Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection and unsafe file operations.
Secure architecture principles reduce attack surface but do not specifically address dynamic file inclusion.
Secure coding standards directly require whitelisting and sanitization of filenames used in include/require statements.