Cyber Resilience

CVE-2025-7825

Published
03 October 2025
Modified
15 April 2026
CVSS Score v3.1 6.3
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
EPSS Score 0.0025 16th percentile
Risk Priority 47 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2025-7825 is a medium-severity Static Code Injection (CWE-96) vulnerability in Wordpress (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 6.3 (Medium).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Content Injection (T1659); ranked at the 16th 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.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

The Schema Plugin For Divi, Gutenberg & Shortcodes plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Object Instantiation in all versions up to, and including, 4.3.2 via deserialization of untrusted input via the wpt_schema_breadcrumbs shortcode. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers,…

more

with Contributor-level access and above, to inject a PHP Object. No known POP chain is present in the vulnerable software, which means this vulnerability has no impact unless another plugin or theme containing a POP chain is installed on the site. If a POP chain is present via an additional plugin or theme installed on the target system, it may allow the attacker to perform actions like delete arbitrary files, retrieve sensitive data, or execute code depending on the POP chain present.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1659 Content Injection Initial Access
Adversaries may gain access and continuously communicate with victims by injecting malicious content into systems through online network traffic.
T1027.009 Embedded Payloads Stealth
Adversaries may embed payloads within other files to conceal malicious content from defenses.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2025-57707Shared CWE-96
CVE-2024-13264Shared CWE-96
CVE-2025-36595Shared CWE-96
CVE-2024-13267Shared CWE-96
CVE-2024-13268Shared CWE-96
CVE-2024-13265Shared CWE-96
CVE-2024-0788Shared CWE-96
CVE-2024-32487Shared CWE-96
CVE-2023-39726Shared CWE-96
CVE-2025-30091Shared CWE-96

Affected Assets

Wordpress
inferred from references and description; NVD did not file a CPE for this CVE

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V1.3.2

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing neutralization of directives in saved code artifacts.

Input validation directly stops unneutralized directives from being inserted into static code resources.

Engineering principles include secure input handling and neutralization requirements that structurally avoid static injection.

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 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly require input neutralization to block static code injection into templates, configs, or libraries.

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.

finds

Security testing in development and acceptance will detect static code injection but does not prevent it at the source.

prevents

Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and sanitization that directly prevents static code injection.

prevents

Application security requirements include rules for neutralizing untrusted input before it is stored in executable resources.

prevents

Secure architecture principles reduce injection surfaces but do not prescribe the specific neutralization techniques.

prevents

Secure coding explicitly requires proper neutralization of directives in templates, libraries and configuration files.

mitigates

Change management can catch unsafe code changes but does not enforce input neutralization.

References