Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-5947 is a critical-severity Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (CWE-639) vulnerability in Vicarius (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked in the top 9% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-24 (Access Control Decisions) and AC-3 (Access Enforcement) — 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 Service Finder Bookings plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to privilege escalation via authentication bypass in all versions up to and including 6.0. The flaw arises because the service_finder_switch_back() function fails to properly validate a user's cookie value before logging the user in, allowing unauthorized access. This issue is tracked as CWE-639 and carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 9.8.
Unauthenticated attackers can exploit the vulnerability over the network to log in as any user, including administrators, thereby gaining full control over the affected WordPress site and its data.
Public references from Wordfence and Vicarius provide guidance on detection and mitigation for this issue in the Service Finder theme ecosystem. The EPSS score stands at 0.6170 with no indicated change from a lower baseline.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-23319
Vulnerability Data
The Service Finder Bookings plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to privilege escalation via authentication bypass in all versions up to, and including, 6.0. This is due to the plugin not properly validating a user's cookie value prior to logging them…
more
in through the service_finder_switch_back() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to login as any user including admins.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Enforcing approved authorizations on every access request structurally stops a user-controlled key from reaching another user's data.
Requiring explicit access-control decisions on each request blocks unauthorized key-driven access.
Least-privilege restrictions limit the scope of data reachable even if a key check is bypassed.
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.
Enforcing authorization policy and least privilege directly blocks user-controlled key tampering that bypasses access checks.
Logical access controls prevent unauthorized data access that results from missing authorization checks on object references.
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 missing authorization checks but does not prevent the weakness in production.
Information access restriction explicitly enforces that users may only retrieve data they are authorized to see, directly addressing user-controlled key bypass.
Access control policy directly requires enforcement of authorization rules that prevent unauthorized access via manipulated keys.
Managing access rights includes ensuring users can only access their own records and not bypass authorization by altering identifiers.
Privileged access rights control restricts what data each user may access, mitigating direct object reference attacks.
Secure development lifecycle includes authorization design but does not itself implement runtime access checks.