By Null Ventures MCP platform
Menu

vulnerability / NVI-00007622 / Revision 3

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

OSV carries this publisher advisory for johnbillion/wp-crontrol. This is an aggregated source copy; consult the original publisher and compare update dates.

source listedactiveGHSA-35c5-67fm-cpcpCVE-2025-8678

This report has not inspected your inventory, configuration, deployed build, reachability or evidence. A catalog listing and a severity score do not establish exposure or compromise.

01 / Meaning

Why it matters

Published affected context helps an owner decide what evidence to gather. This report has not examined your application.

EPSS

0.363%

FIRST EPSS model v2026.06.15; exploitation probability over 30 days, percentile 0.30171. Missing scores are unknown.

As of · FIRST EPSS

02 / Applicability

The affected context

Affected versions, configuration prerequisites and known exclusions are public. Confirm each one against the deployed service.

johnbillion/wp-crontrol

source listed
  • ECOSYSTEM: introduced 1.17.0; fixed 1.19.2

### 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. ### Workaround

GitHub Advisory Database via OSV

03 / Response

What to do next

  1. vendor patch

    The original advisory lists fixed boundaries 1.19.2 for johnbillion/wp-crontrol. Confirm the publisher’s latest guidance.

    Confirm current vendor support, compatibility and deployment evidence. This report has not tested a fix in your system. GitHub Advisory Database via OSV

  2. investigate

    Identify the exact component and deployed version, examine the linked publisher’s conditions, and retain evidence of any mitigation.

    Confirm current vendor support, compatibility and deployment evidence. This report has not tested a fix in your system. FIRST EPSS

A fixed release is not deployment evidence.

Check current vendor support and compatibility. After making a change, verify the deployed build and relevant runtime conditions. Keep the evidence, owner and time. An updated lockfile alone does not prove what is running.

04 / Limits

What this report cannot establish

  • Customer inventory, deployment, reachability and exploitation have not been inspected.
Read the collection and interpretation limits ↗

05 / Provenance

Sources you can inspect

Each assertion retains its source. Mirrored records may repeat one underlying publisher; additional links are not independent corroboration.

  1. GHSA-35c5-67fm-cpcp ↗

    GitHub Advisory Database via OSV · vendor advisory

    Observed . GitHub-origin advisory, CC-BY-4.0; OSV is an aggregate copy, not independent corroboration.

  2. CVE-2025-8678 ↗

    FIRST EPSS · official catalog

    Observed . FIRST EPSS; probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, not local compromise. Dataset date/model retained; FIRST services terms apply.

Public revision history

Only published revisions appear here. Routine fetches do not create a material-change event.

  1. Revision 3 ·

    Dated EPSS estimate updated; this is not a new disclosure or proof of exploitation.

  2. Revision 2 ·

    Dated EPSS estimate updated; this is not a new disclosure or proof of exploitation.

Read the public revision data ↗

The next step is private

Bring the question into your environment.

The connected workflow is a development preview for inventory, contextual matching, owner decisions and evidence-based verification. No system-specific result is generated by this page.

See the synthetic workflow preview ↗