Which versions are affected?

Affected product and version evidence is listed in the product table above. Current public advisories should be checked for exact version scope before patch targeting is finalized.

Is there active exploitation?

Exploitation is reported, but no independent confirmation is available in the sources we have. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

No. CVE-2025-10005 is not listed in CISA KEV in the supplied enrichment data. KEV status should be monitored because it can change after initial disclosure or after exploitation becomes publicly confirmed.

Is there a public exploit?

6 public PoC repositories reported; 1 marked weaponized in current dataset. Public exploit or PoC availability should raise triage priority, especially for exposed or business-critical systems.

How can defenders detect it?

Start with web/proxy/WAF logs, application logs, network IDS/IPS, identity provider logs, authentication audit logs where available. Look for vulnerability-class behavior, product errors, suspicious authentication events, exploit probes, and abnormal process activity based only on evidence that applies to the affected product.

How should teams prioritize it?

Prioritize CVE-2025-10005 using CVSS 4.3, EPSS 0%, KEV status, public PoC status, and asset exposure. Internet-facing, privileged, or business-critical deployments should be handled first.

Are workarounds available?

The supplied mitigation guidance says to apply vendor patches and restrict external exposure until fixed. Fixed-version evidence is listed in the mitigation section above.

Which threat actors are linked publicly?

No public threat actor linkage is confirmed from current sources. Do not attribute exploitation to a threat actor unless the source evidence explicitly supports that linkage.

What should be done in the next 24 hours?

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations. Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure. Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class. Open remediation tickets with affected assets, owners, evidence status, and detection coverage so decisions are traceable.

mediumAuth Bypasspublic exploit

CVE-2025-10005

CVE-2025-10005 — Password Protect WordPress Lite <= 1.9.20 - Insecure Direct Object Reference to Authenticated (Contributor+) Password Protected Post Password Update

Q: What is CVE-2025-10005?

CVE-2025-10005 is Password Protect WordPress Lite <= 1.9.20 - Insecure Direct Object Reference to Authenticated (Contributor+) Password Protected Post Password Update. The supplied enrichment data classifies it as Auth Bypass mapped to CWE-639 CWE-639.

The PPWP – Password Protect WordPress | #1 Most-Reviewed Password Plugin plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Insecure Direct Object Reference in all versions up to, and including, 1.9.20 via the ppw_free_set_password AJAX action due to missing validation on a user controlled key. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and above, to update the password on any password protected post and subsequently access the content.

Published Aug 16, 2026Updated Aug 16, 2026Sources: NVD, buildwps (CNA), GitHub, GitHub Security Advisory, SOCRadar CTI

Triage

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

Exploitation

Reported

not confirmed by CISA

EPSS

ahead of 0% of scored CVEs

Affects

buildwps

PPWP – Password Protect Pages

CVSS base

4.3

medium

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade PPWP – Password Protect Pages to a fixed release. Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status
buildwps	PPWP – Password Protect Pages	0 to <= 1.9.20	Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Availability

None

Confidentiality

Low

Integrity

None

Scope

Unchanged

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Network

Privileges Req

Low

User Interaction

None

Every base score collected

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

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Source
4.3	CVSS 3.1	medium	2.8	1.4	NVD, buildwps (CNA), GHSA

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

What this weakness leads to

MITRE's own consequences and mitigations for the weakness class — the authority's wording, not guidance derived from the CVSS vector.

MITRE

CWE-639 · Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key

Bypass Protection Mechanism
Gain Privileges or Assume Identity

Mitigation: For each and every data access, ensure that the user has sufficient privilege to access the record that is being requested.

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-639

Inferred from the weakness class — not observed against this CVE.

CAPEC-115 · Authentication BypassCAPEC-94 · Adversary in the Middle

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Repositories

1 of the 5 sampled are weaponized

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable PPWP – Password Protect Pages.
Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 6 public PoC repositories were reported.

web/proxy/WAF logsapplication logsnetwork IDS/IPSidentity provider logsauthentication audit logs

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

2026
Added · CVSS 3.1 4.3 (AV:N)
Aug 16, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Aug 16, 2026 · NVD
Added · GHSA-5fxx-hjg5-h5pq published (medium)
Aug 16, 2026 · GitHub Security Advisory
Reported · Disclosed
Aug 15, 2026 · buildwps
2025
Reported · Vendor Notified
Sep 4, 2025 · buildwps

Source activity

Readings a source repeats on a schedule, counted rather than listed.

1×CVE modified by NIST, Modified, LinkAug 16, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

References

5 on the record

plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?reponame=&old=3637624%40password-protect-page&new=3637624%40password-protect-page
Vendor Advisory
research.cleantalk.org/CVE-2025-10005
Vendor Advisory
www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/b1850e16-6fac-4d72-9346-ea6280fe84d0?source=cve
Vendor Advisory, NIST
nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-10005
NVD
github.com/advisories/GHSA-5fxx-hjg5-h5pq
Exploit, Third Party Advisory

Elsewhere on this site

buildwpsevery CVE for this vendor
Auth Bypasssame class
CWE-639other pages naming this weakness

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.

Answered from this record1

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2025-10005 is Password Protect WordPress Lite <= 1.9.20 - Insecure Direct Object Reference to Authenticated (Contributor+) Password Protected Post Password Update, a medium vulnerability affecting PPWP – Password Protect Pages from buildwps. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Exploitation is reported, but no independent confirmation is available in the sources we have. Public exploit evidence is: 6 public PoC repositories reported; 1 marked weaponized in current dataset. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 4.3 describes technical severity, while EPSS 0% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.