Is Classic Editor Safe?
Classic Editor — Nerq Trust Score 68.2/100 (B- grade). Score based on 2 independent trust signals. Last analyzed: 2026-04-12
Classic Editor is a WordPress plugin with a Nerq Trust Score of 68.2/100 (B-), based on 3 independent data dimensions. Last analyzed: 2026-04-12 Security: 90/100. Popularity: 100/100. Data sourced from WordPress.org metadata, WPScan vulnerability database, active installs, and update history. Last updated: 2026-04-12. Machine-readable data (JSON).
Is Classic Editor safe?
Trust Score Breakdown — Classic Editor has a Nerq Trust Score of 68.2/100 (B-). Measured across 2 independent trust signals (as of 2026-04-12).
What is Classic Editor's trust score?
Classic Editor has a Nerq Trust Score of 68.2/100, earning a B- grade. This score is based on 2 independently measured dimensions including security, maintenance, and community adoption.
What are the key security findings for Classic Editor?
Classic Editor's strongest signal is popularity at 100/100. No known vulnerabilities have been detected.
What is Classic Editor and who maintains it?
| Author | WordPress.org |
| Category | WordPress Plugins |
| Source | N/A |
Similar Wordpress by Trust Score
Compare
Safety Guide: Classic Editor
What is Classic Editor?
Classic Editor is a WordPress plugin — Enables the previous "classic" editor and the old-style Edit Post screen with TinyMCE, Meta Boxes, etc. Supports all plugins that extend this screen..
How to Verify Safety
Check WordPress.org for support response time, tested WP version. Cross-reference with WPScan.
You can also check the trust score via API: GET /v1/preflight?target=Classic Editor
Key Safety Concerns for WordPress plugin
When evaluating any WordPress plugin, watch for: known vulnerabilities, PHP compatibility, plugin conflicts.
Measured Signals
Classic Editor has a Nerq Trust Score of 68/100 (B-). This score is a composite of automated measurements of security, maintenance, community, and quality signals.
Key Takeaways
- Classic Editor has a Trust Score of 68/100 (B-).
- The score is a measured composite — it is not a suitability judgment. Evaluate the individual signals against your own requirements.
- Query the current measured values via the Nerq API.
Detailed Score Analysis
| Dimension | Score |
|---|---|
| Security | 90/100 |
| Maintenance | 70/100 |
| Popularity | 100/100 |
| Quality | 40/100 |
| Community | 35/100 |
Based on 5 dimensions. Data from WordPress.org metadata, WPScan vulnerability database, active installs, and update history.
What data does Classic Editor collect?
Classic Editor has a privacy score of 70/100. Review the documentation and privacy policy for data handling details.
Full analysis: Classic Editor Privacy Report · Privacy review
Is Classic Editor secure?
Security score: 90/100 (0-100, higher = fewer measured security issues).
Nerq monitors this entity against NVD, OSV.dev, and registry-specific vulnerability databases for ongoing security assessment.
Full analysis: Classic Editor Security Report
How we calculated this score
Classic Editor's trust score of 68.2/100 (B-) is computed from WordPress.org metadata, WPScan vulnerability database, active installs, and update history. The score reflects 5 independent dimensions: security (90/100), maintenance (70/100), popularity (100/100), quality (40/100), community (35/100). Each dimension is weighted equally to produce the composite trust score.
Nerq analyzes over 7.5 million entities across 26 registries using the same methodology, enabling direct cross-entity comparison. Scores are updated continuously as new data becomes available.
Signals last measured on April 12, 2026. Data version: 1.0.
Full methodology documentation · Machine-readable data (JSON API)
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Classic Editor Safe?
What is Classic Editor's trust score?
What are safer alternatives to Classic Editor?
Does Classic Editor have known vulnerabilities?
Is Classic Editor compatible with the latest WordPress?
Popular in WordPress Plugins
Browse Categories
See Also
Disclaimer: Nerq trust scores are automated measurements based on publicly available signals. They are not endorsements, verdicts, or guarantees of suitability. Always evaluate the signals against your own requirements.