CVE-2025-2801
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:LCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2025-2801 is a high-severity Code Injection (CWE-94) vulnerability in Wordpress (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 7.3 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked at the 41th 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 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 Create custom forms for WordPress with a smart form plugin for smart businesses plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to arbitrary shortcode execution in all versions up to and including 1.2.4. The issue stems from insufficient validation of a user-supplied value passed to the do_shortcode function, enabling code injection as classified under CWE-94. The vulnerability carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 7.3 with a network attack vector and no authentication or user interaction required.
Unauthenticated attackers can exploit the flaw remotely by invoking an action handler that executes arbitrary shortcodes, potentially leading to limited impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability within the WordPress site.
Public references, including the Wordfence threat intelligence entry and the plugin's Trac source listings for versions 1.2.4, identify the affected code paths at abcsubmit.php lines 86 and 88 along with the plugin's developer page, though no explicit patch or mitigation details are provided in the available references.
EPSS for the CVE rose from a low baseline to a peak of 0.0168 on 2026-02-20 before receding to the current value of 0.0053, indicating emerging exploitation interest after disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-12495
Vulnerability Data
The The Create custom forms for WordPress with a smart form plugin for smart businesses plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to arbitrary shortcode execution in all versions up to, and including, 1.2.4. This is due to the software allowing users…
more
to execute an action that does not properly validate a value before running do_shortcode. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary shortcodes.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.3.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation finds code paths that accept and execute externally influenced strings.
Input validation directly stops untrusted data from being used to construct executable code without neutralization.
Least privilege limits the damage an injected code fragment can perform once executed.
Requiring documented secure development standards and tools enforces use of safe code-generation APIs and escaping.
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-06's SDLC practices directly target injection flaws via secure coding and testing (mostly), yet as a single broad outcome it leaves many code-generation specifics unaddressed (partial).
PR.DS-10 protects runtime data confidentiality/integrity but has no bearing on neutralizing externally influenced input during code generation, so neither direction shows any preventive effect.
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.
Banning unapproved code samples and unauthenticated web services, combined with secure-coding standards and SAST, prevents the dynamic generation or inclusion of attacker-supplied code.