CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
MEDIUM

CVE-2023-2717

CVE-2023-2717 — Groundhogg <= 2.7.9.8 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Disable All Plugins

The Groundhogg plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to, and including, 2.7.9.8. This is due to missing nonce validation on the 'enable_safe_mode' function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to enable safe mode, which disables all other plugins, via a forged request if they can successfully trick an administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link. A warning message about safe mode is displayed to the admin, which can be easily disabled.

Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, Wordfence

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

0%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

trainingbusinesspros

groundhogg_crm_newsletters_and_marketing_automation

CVSS base

5.4

MEDIUM

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

None

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

No

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Partial

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Affected scope

The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.

Products (1)

groundhogg crm newsletters and marketing automation

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
5.4CVSS 3.1MEDIUMcvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-352

References

3 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.