Skip to content

WP Crontrol Authenticated (Administrator+) plugin vulnerable to Blind Server-Side Request Forgery

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Aug 19, 2025 in johnbillion/wp-crontrol • Updated Aug 19, 2025

Package

composer johnbillion/wp-crontrol (Composer)

Affected versions

>= 1.17.0, < 1.19.2

Patched versions

1.19.2

Description

Impact

The WP Crontrol plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Blind Server-Side Request Forgery in versions 1.17.0 to 1.19.1 via the wp_remote_request() function. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Administrator-level access and above, to make web requests to arbitrary locations originating from the web application and can be used to query and modify information from internal services.

It is not possible for a user without Administrator level access to exploit this weakness. It is not possible for an Administrator performing an attack to see the HTTP response to the request to their chosen URL, nor is it possible for them to time the response.

Patches

WP Crontrol version 1.19.2 makes the following changes to harden the URL cron event feature:

  • URLs are now validated for safety with the wp_http_validate_url() function upon saving. The user is informed if they save a cron event containing a URL that is not considered safe, and the HTTP request will not trigger when the event runs.
  • HTTP requests are now performed via the wp_safe_remote_request() function in place of wp_remote_request(). This prevents an SSRF being performed.

Workarounds

Update the WP Crontrol plugin for WordPress to version 1.19.2 or later. If you are not able to update immediately, remove any Administrator level users who are not fully trusted.

FAQ

Is my site at risk?

Your site is only at risk if an untrustworthy Administrator on your site decides to exploit this weakness in order to blindly send HTTP requests, either to external URLs or to internal services running on your server. These requests can only be performed asynchronously, which means the HTTP response cannot be seen nor timed, which significantly restricts the practical methods of exploiting this weakness.

Separately, it is not possible for an attacker with database level access on your server to tamper with a URL cron event and perform an SSRF due to the anti-tampering measures built in to WP Crontrol.

Thanks

This issue was identified by Jonas Benjamin Friedli and reported to the Wordfence Intelligence Bug Bounty Program.

Security bugs should be reported through the official WP Crontrol Vulnerability Disclosure Program on Patchstack. The Patchstack team helps validate, triage, and handle any security vulnerabilities.

References

@johnbillion johnbillion published to johnbillion/wp-crontrol Aug 19, 2025
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Aug 19, 2025
Reviewed Aug 19, 2025
Last updated Aug 19, 2025

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required High
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity Low
Availability Low
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity Low
Availability Low

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:L/SA:L

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(10th percentile)

Weaknesses

Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2025-8678

GHSA ID

GHSA-35c5-67fm-cpcp

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.