Focus on artplacer vulnerabilities and metrics.
Last updated: 18 May 2025, 22:25 UTC
This page consolidates all known Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) associated with artplacer. We track both calendar-based metrics (using fixed periods) and rolling metrics (using gliding windows) to give you a comprehensive view of security trends and risk evolution. Use these insights to assess risk and plan your patching strategy.
For a broader perspective on cybersecurity threats, explore the comprehensive list of CVEs by vendor and product. Stay updated on critical vulnerabilities affecting major software and hardware providers.
Total artplacer CVEs: 3
Earliest CVE date: 16 Jan 2024, 16:15 UTC
Latest CVE date: 19 Jul 2024, 06:15 UTC
Latest CVE reference: CVE-2023-7269
30-day Count (Rolling): 0
365-day Count (Rolling): 2
Calendar-based Variation
Calendar-based Variation compares a fixed calendar period (e.g., this month versus the same month last year), while Rolling Growth Rate uses a continuous window (e.g., last 30 days versus the previous 30 days) to capture trends independent of calendar boundaries.
Month Variation (Calendar): 0%
Year Variation (Calendar): 100.0%
Month Growth Rate (30-day Rolling): 0.0%
Year Growth Rate (365-day Rolling): 100.0%
Average CVSS: 0.0
Max CVSS: 0
Critical CVEs (≥9): 0
| Range | Count |
|---|---|
| 0.0-3.9 | 3 |
| 4.0-6.9 | 0 |
| 7.0-8.9 | 0 |
| 9.0-10.0 | 0 |
These are the five CVEs with the highest CVSS scores for artplacer, sorted by severity first and recency.
The ArtPlacer Widget WordPress plugin before 2.21.2 does not have CSRF check in some places, and is missing sanitisation as well as escaping, which could allow attackers to make logged in admin add Stored XSS payloads via a CSRF attack
The ArtPlacer Widget WordPress plugin before 2.21.2 does not have authorisation check in place when deleting widgets, allowing ay authenticated users, such as subscriber, to delete arbitrary widgets
The ArtPlacer Widget WordPress plugin before 2.20.7 does not sanitize and escape the "id" parameter before submitting the query, leading to a SQLI exploitable by editors and above. Note: Due to the lack of CSRF check, the issue could also be exploited via a CSRF against a logged editor (or above)