Имя плагина | Radius Blocks |
---|---|
Type of Vulnerability | Authenticated Stored XSS |
CVE Number | CVE-2025-5844 |
Срочность | Низкий |
CVE Publish Date | 2025-08-14 |
Source URL | CVE-2025-5844 |
Authenticated Contributor Stored XSS in Radius Blocks (= 2.2.1) — What WordPress Site Owners Need to Know and How WP‑Firewall Protects You
Дата: 2025-08-15
Автор: WP‑Firewall Security Team
Теги: WordPress, Security, WAF, XSS, Plugin Vulnerability, Radius Blocks, CVE-2025-5844
Note: This post is written from the perspective of the WP‑Firewall security team. It explains the recently reported stored Cross‑Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability affecting the Radius Blocks plugin (versions <= 2.2.1, CVE‑2025‑5844), the risk to your site, developer fixes, and practical protection steps site owners and administrators can apply immediately — including virtual/managed firewall mitigations we provide.
Введение
On 14 August 2025 a stored Cross‑Site Scripting issue (CVE‑2025‑5844) affecting Radius Blocks (<= 2.2.1) was disclosed. The vulnerability allows an authenticated user with Contributor privileges (or higher) to store HTML/JavaScript content in a plugin parameter named subHeadingTagName
. When that stored value is rendered without proper sanitization or escaping, it can execute in a victim’s browser — impacting site visitors and privileged users who view the affected output.
As a WordPress firewall and security provider, we want to give site owners an accurate, actionable, and developer‑aware explanation of this issue: how it works, the real-world risk, how to detect and mitigate it immediately, and what a long‑term developer fix should be. We’ll also explain how a managed WAF / virtual patching approach can provide immediate protection while you plan remediation.
Quick summary
- Vulnerability type: Stored Cross‑Site Scripting (XSS)
- Affected software: Radius Blocks plugin, versions <= 2.2.1
- CVE: CVE‑2025‑5844
- Required attacker privilege: Contributor (authenticated)
- Exploitability: Moderate — requires a Contributor account but the payload persists and can execute for other users later
- Severity / CVSS: Reported CVSS 6.5 (medium‑low) — meaningful impact, especially on multi‑author or editorial sites
- Official fix: Not available at disclosure time (apply virtual patching / mitigation and limit privileges)
Why stored XSS from a Contributor matters
Stored XSS is a high‑impact class of vulnerability because malicious input is persisted in the site database, then executed when another user loads the page. The notable aspects here:
- Contributor accounts are common in editorial workflows. Many news sites, blogs, and organizations grant Contributor access to writers or volunteers.
- While Contributors typically cannot publish, they can create content or interact with interfaces where plugin settings or block attributes are saved. If a Contributor can inject JavaScript into plugin data that later displays to Editors, Administrators, or site visitors, the consequences can be severe.
- Stored XSS can be used for session theft, privilege escalation (via CSRF + admin actions triggered in the browser), content defacement, redirection to phishing pages, or persistent malware injection.
How this vulnerability works (technical overview)
The issue centers on a parameter called subHeadingTagName
in the Radius Blocks plugin. That parameter is intended to store a tag name (for example, h2
, h3
, etc.) used when rendering sub‑headings. The correct handling for such a parameter is strict validation against an allowlist of permitted tag names (and escaping before output). In the vulnerable code path, input supplied by an authenticated Contributor is stored and later output without proper sanitization/escaping or validation, enabling script injection.
Typical problematic patterns that lead to this kind of bug:
- Accepting arbitrary strings for “tag name” and storing them directly.
- Rendering user input into HTML with minimal or no escaping (e.g., echoing a value into a tag name or attribute context).
- Missing capability or nonce checks on REST/AJAX endpoints used to save block attributes.
What an attacker with Contributor access could do
An authenticated Contributor could:
- Submit a crafted value for
subHeadingTagName
that contains a script or on* attribute, relying on output that will not be sanitized, so the browser executes it when the page, post, or block is rendered. - Because the value is stored, the payload will affect every visitor who loads that content — including Editors and Administrators who might open it in the block editor or a settings panel.
- The attacker can embed client‑side code that performs redirection, steals cookies or session tokens (if
HttpOnly
flags are missing), or triggers browser‑initiated requests that perform privileged actions on behalf of an authenticated admin (CSRF‑style).
Important contextual notes
- This is not an unauthenticated RCE or SQL injection: an attacker needs a logged‑in account with Contributor privileges or higher.
- The impact on a site depends on how the plugin uses the
subHeadingTagName
value: if it is rendered in the front‑end to visitors or in the admin area to editors, the attack surface is larger. - The presence of secure cookie flags (HttpOnly, SameSite) and modern CSP headers may reduce some risks, but you must not rely solely on those defenses.
Immediate risk reduction for site owners
If you run WordPress and have Radius Blocks installed, take these immediate steps:
- Limit Contributor access temporarily
- Restrict who has Contributor accounts. Disable or remove unused Contributor accounts.
- If your workflow allows, temporarily downgrade or lock Contributor accounts until the site is patched or mitigated.
- Audit recent content and settings
- Search for suspicious content in posts, postmeta, widget options, and plugin options where block attributes may be stored. Look for strings containing
<script
,javascript:
,onerror=
,onload=
, or unusual HTML inserted into tag settings. - Use WP‑CLI, database queries, or your database admin tools to find suspicious entries (see detection guidance below).
- Search for suspicious content in posts, postmeta, widget options, and plugin options where block attributes may be stored. Look for strings containing
- Put a WAF rule in place (virtual patch)
- If you run a managed firewall or WAF (application layer), enable a rule blocking requests that attempt to save parameters with script tags, event handlers, or unusual tag names into block attributes. See WAF rule ideas below.
- Harden site security
- Enforce strong admin/editor passwords and enable two‑factor authentication for administrator/editor users.
- Apply Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to help limit script execution origins.
- Ensure cookies use secure flags (HttpOnly, Secure, SameSite).
- Monitor logs & user activity
- Watch for anomalous behavior from Contributor accounts (unexpected saves, changed profiles, posts containing HTML).
- Check web server access logs for POST requests to REST endpoints or admin‑ajax that include suspicious payloads.
Developer guidance — how to fix the plugin (recommended patch)
If you are the developer of the plugin or maintain a site where you can patch plugin code, apply these corrections:
- Validate inputs using an allowlist
$allowed_tags = array('h1','h2','h3','h4','h5','h6','p','span'); $tag = isset( $data['subHeadingTagName'] ) ? strtolower( trim( $data['subHeadingTagName'] ) ) : 'h3'; if ( ! in_array( $tag, $allowed_tags, true ) ) { $tag = 'h3'; // fallback safe default }
- Sanitize and escape at output
Escape any dynamic values before echoing into HTML:
- Использовать
esc_attr()
for attribute context, esc_html()
when outputting text,- For tag names used to build HTML tags, validate to ensure they are in the allowlist and then output them safely.
printf( '<%1$s class="%2$s">%3$s</%1$s>', esc_html( $tag ), esc_attr( $class ), esc_html( $content ) );
- Использовать
- Enforce capability and nonce checks on REST and AJAX endpoints
Ensure the saving endpoints perform:
current_user_can('edit_posts')
or a suitable capability check,check_ajax_referer()
(or WP REST nonce checks) to avoid CSRF/unauthorized saves.
- Avoid storing unsanitized HTML in options/meta
If storing HTML is required, use WP’s built‑in sanitization with a strict allowed HTML list (
wp_kses
) rather than saving raw input.$allowed_html = array( 'a' => array( 'href' => true, 'title' => true ), 'strong' => array(), 'em' => array(), // ... limited tags only ); $safe_html = wp_kses( $input_html, $allowed_html );
- Unit tests and code review
Add tests that attempt to inject XSS vectors and assert they are sanitized. Review all points where user input can be stored or rendered.
How WP‑Firewall protects sites (virtual patching & detection)
As a security provider, we layer multiple mitigations to protect our customers while developers prepare or release an official patch. Key protections we deploy:
- Virtual patching (WAF rules)
- Block or sanitize requests that include suspicious values in parameters that map to block attributes (including
subHeadingTagName
). - Rule examples we use internally:
- Block POST/PUT requests to known plugin endpoints that include
<script
or encoded equivalents (%3Cscript
) in form fields or JSON payloads. - Deny values for tag name parameters that contain non‑alpha characters, angle brackets, or event handler substrings (e.g.,
onerror
,onclick
). - Enforce strict allowlists on the
subHeadingTagName
parameter using pattern matching or an explicit list.
- Block POST/PUT requests to known plugin endpoints that include
- These rules apply to both admin and front‑end submission endpoints to stop storage of malicious content.
- Block or sanitize requests that include suspicious values in parameters that map to block attributes (including
- Request normalization and detection
- Normalize payload encoding to detect obfuscated script tags (hex, double encoding) and block them.
- Detect and block attribute injection patterns (e.g.,
">
).
- Monitoring and alerting
- Alert site owners when blocked requests match the stored XSS signatures or when suspicious Contributor activity is detected.
- Granular lockdown options
- Allow administrators to restrict Contributor roles from accessing certain endpoints or block writes to plugin settings via WAF.
Sample WAF rules (conceptual)
Below are conceptual signatures and ideas you can use in a web application firewall or server configuration. These are high level — adapt them to your environment and test carefully to avoid false positives.
- Block requests where a field that should contain only a tag name contains angle brackets:
Pattern: parameter value matches.*[<>].*
Action: block or sanitize - Enforce allowed tag names:
Pattern: parameter value NOT matching^(h[1-6]|p|span)$
Action: block or log and remove parameter - Block common XSS tokens in JSON body or form data:
Pattern:(<script|%3Cscript|javascript:|onerror=|onload=|onmouseover=|document\.cookie)
Action: block + alert - Normalize URIs and payloads to detect encoded forms and variations.
Detection and clean‑up if you suspect compromise
If you believe your site was exploited:
- Isolate and image
- Put your site into maintenance mode or block public access until you complete triage.
- Create a full backup/image of the site and database for forensic purposes.
- Identify the malicious payload
- Search the database for suspicious strings (script tags, encoded script tokens, event handler attributes).
- Typical places to check:
wp_posts.post_content
wp_postmeta
wp_options
(plugin settings)wp_usermeta
and user profiles (in case of profile HTML)
- WP‑CLI examples:
wp db query "SELECT ID, post_title FROM wp_posts WHERE post_content LIKE '%<script%';" wp db query "SELECT option_name FROM wp_options WHERE option_value LIKE '%<script%';"
- Clean or restore
- If you have a clean backup, restoring is often the fastest way to recover.
- If you must clean in place:
- Remove only the malicious payloads (do not remove entire records unless you understand the impact).
- Replace plugin files with official clean versions from the plugin repository.
- Rotate all administrator passwords and secret keys (wp-config salts).
- Revoke and reissue any API keys exposed.
- Investigate account misuse
- Review user accounts for unauthorized changes or new admin/editor accounts created by the attacker.
- Remove suspicious users and reset passwords.
- Request professional incident response if needed
- For complex intrusions, engage a security incident response provider.
Hardening WordPress against Contributor‑level XSS risks
- Principle of least privilege: Only grant Contributor access when absolutely needed. Consider stricter roles or custom roles with reduced capabilities.
- Content moderation workflow: If possible, require Editors to review and sanitize contributed content before rendering on the front end.
- Block untrusted HTML: Ensure users without
unfiltered_html
capability cannot submit raw HTML that will be rendered. - CSP: Implement a restrictive Content Security Policy to reduce the impact of injected scripts (e.g., default‑src 'self'; disallow inline scripts unless necessary and use nonces for trusted scripts).
- Regular plugin audits: Keep a list of installed plugins and their update status. Unmaintained plugins present ongoing risk.
- Automated scanning: Run scheduled scans for known vulnerability signatures and suspicious file changes.
Guidance for plugin authors — best practices
This vulnerability is a textbook example of how a small oversight in input validation and output escaping can lead to stored XSS. Developers should adopt these practices:
- Always validate against an allowlist for values that are picked from a small domain (like tag names).
- Escape on output. Remember: sanitize on input, escape on output.
- Use WordPress APIs for sanitization:
esc_attr()
,esc_html()
,wp_kses()
with strict allowed tags,санировать_текстовое_поле()
when appropriate. - Implement robust capability checks and nonces on any endpoint that accepts user input.
- Add unit tests that simulate attempts to inject HTML and assert that persisted values are safe to render.
- Provide defense‑in‑depth: even when the UI validates input client‑side, also validate server‑side before writing to the database.
Why virtual patching / managed WAF matters now
When a vulnerability is disclosed and no official patch is yet available, virtual patching via a WAF or managed security layer is an effective stopgap. It:
- Stops attacks in transit by blocking malicious requests destined to store the payload.
- Buys you time to implement a proper fix or wait for the plugin author to release an update.
- Protects the entire site even if the plugin remains unpatched for some time.
That said, virtual patching is a mitigation — it’s not a substitute for a proper code fix. Once an official plugin update is released, apply it promptly.
A checklist for site owners (actionable)
- Inventory: Do you have Radius Blocks installed? Which version?
- Users: Audit Contributor accounts — disable unused accounts and enforce strong passwords.
- Backups: Ensure you have recent clean backups before making changes.
- WAF: Enable or configure WAF rules blocking script tags and event attributes in saved parameters.
- Scan: Run a site scan for injected script tags and suspicious content.
- Patch: When the plugin author releases a new version, apply updates after testing.
- Monitor: Keep server and application logs for signs of attempted exploitation.
Responsible disclosure & coordination
If you discover vulnerabilities in plugins you use or maintain:
- Report them through the plugin developer’s security contact or their official support channels.
- Provide clear reproduction steps, evidence, and suggested mitigations.
- If no timely response is available, consider notifying your hosting provider and applying virtual patches while coordinating with the broader community.
A developer example: safe handling of subHeadingTagName
Here’s a small example showing safer handling of a tag name in a plugin:
// Example: sanitize a subheading tag name before saving or output
function sanitize_subheading_tag( $input_tag ) {
$allowed_tags = array( 'h1','h2','h3','h4','h5','h6','p','span' );
$t = strtolower( trim( (string) $input_tag ) );
if ( in_array( $t, $allowed_tags, true ) ) {
return $t;
}
return 'h3'; // safe default
}
// Output usage
$tag = sanitize_subheading_tag( $saved_value );
echo '<' . esc_html( $tag ) . ' class="' . esc_attr( $class ) . '">' . esc_html( $content ) . '</' . esc_html( $tag ) . '>';
This pattern enforces a strict allowlist and always escapes the output.
Detecting this vulnerability during code review
During manual code review or automated static analysis, flag code that:
- Stores values that look like HTML or tag names without server‑side validation.
- Echoes plugin options or block attributes directly into HTML contexts.
- Uses REST or AJAX endpoints without capability and nonce checks.
- Allows Contributors to save settings that affect the front‑end without moderation.
Longer‑term defensive strategies
- Adopt Content Security Policies that limit script execution sources and disallow inline scripts where possible.
- Enforce centralized input validation libraries within plugins and themes.
- Reduce the number of plugins that can control rendering structure (tag names, raw HTML).
- Consider feature flags to disable plugin features that require rendering dynamic HTML until they are hardened.
If your site was affected — an incident response primer
- Triage: Identify affected content and isolate the site.
- Containment: Block malicious accounts and requests (WAF rule).
- Eradication: Remove malicious payloads, update plugins, replace infected files.
- Recovery: Restore from clean backup if necessary. Change credentials and rotate secrets.
- Lessons learned: Adjust processes and implement checks to prevent recurrence.
Protect your WordPress site today — WP‑Firewall Free plan
Start protecting your site with WP‑Firewall Basic (Free)
If you want immediate protection that complements your site hardening and developer fixes, consider WP‑Firewall’s Basic free plan. It provides essential managed firewall protection including a Web Application Firewall (WAF), unlimited bandwidth, automated malware scanning, and mitigation for OWASP Top 10 risks — exactly the kinds of protections that reduce risk from stored XSS and similar plugin issues while you patch.
Learn more and sign up for the free plan here
(If you need additional capabilities like automatic malware removal, IP blacklisting/whitelisting, monthly security reports, or auto virtual patching, consider our Standard and Pro plans listed on the signup page.)
Заключение
The Radius Blocks stored XSS issue (CVE‑2025‑5844) is an important reminder that even seemingly small plugin parameters can be abused when server‑side validation and escaping are missing. Site owners should act immediately by limiting Contributor privileges, auditing content, applying WAF mitigations, and monitoring activity. Plugin authors must enforce allowlists, proper escaping, capability checks, and nonces.
A layered approach — secure code, disciplined user role management, CSP, and a managed WAF/virtual patch — provides the best protection. If you’d like help implementing immediate protections while your team applies code fixes, WP‑Firewall can provide managed virtual patches and always‑on WAF coverage to stop exploitation attempts in transit.
If you found this useful, save this post for your security playbook and review your Contributor workflows — the simplest editorial convenience can sometimes be an attacker’s way in.
Further reading and tools
- CVE‑2025‑5844 (reference)
- WordPress developer handbooks on data sanitization and escaping
- WP‑CLI documentation for searching the database
- Content Security Policy (CSP) guides
If you’d like assistance auditing your site, implementing WAF rules, or remediating active issues, our team is available to help.