CVE-2023-6520VulnerabilityPublished 11 Jan 2024Updated 9 Jun 2025

CVE-2023-6520: WP 2FA – Two-factor authentication for WordPress · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Affects WP 2FA – Two-factor authentication for WordPressSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 15% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 11 Jan 2024
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-25.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
melapress WP 2FA – Two-factor authentication for WordPress	Affected *	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

European organizations should prioritize the following mitigation steps: 1) Immediately check if their WordPress installations use the WP 2FA plugin version 2.5.0 or earlier and plan for an upgrade once a patched version is released by melapress. 2) Until a patch is available, implement web application firewall (WAF) rules to detect and block suspicious POST requests to the send_backup_codes_email endpoint, especially those missing nonce parameters. 3) Educate administrators and registered users about the risk of clicking unsolicited or unexpected links, emphasizing caution with emails that prompt actions related to two-factor authentication or account recovery. 4) Monitor outgoing email logs for unusual activity that could indicate exploitation attempts. 5) Consider disabling the send_backup_codes_email functionality temporarily if feasible, or restrict access to trusted IP ranges. 6) Employ Content Security Policy (CSP) headers and anti-CSRF tokens in custom integrations to reduce the risk of CSRF attacks. 7) Maintain regular backups and incident response plans to quickly address any phishing or social engineering incidents stemming from this vulnerability.

Description

The WP 2FA – Two-factor authentication for WordPress plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.5.0. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the send_backup_codes_email function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to send emails with arbitrary content to registered users via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator or other registered user into performing an action such as clicking on a link. While a nonce check is present, it is only executed if a nonce is set. By omitting a nonce from the request, the check can be bypassed.

Impact

For European organizations using WordPress sites with the vulnerable WP 2FA plugin, this vulnerability poses a risk primarily to the integrity of communications and user trust. Attackers could send forged emails to registered users, potentially leading to phishing attacks or social engineering that could compromise user credentials or lead to further exploitation. Although the vulnerability does not directly expose sensitive data or allow system takeover, the indirect consequences could be significant, especially for organizations relying on WordPress for customer engagement, internal portals, or e-commerce. In sectors such as finance, healthcare, or government within Europe, where trust and secure communication are critical, this vulnerability could facilitate targeted attacks against employees or customers. The requirement for user interaction (clicking a malicious link) somewhat limits the attack scope but does not eliminate risk, especially in environments where users may be less security-aware. Additionally, the vulnerability could be exploited to disrupt normal operations by flooding users with unsolicited emails, potentially leading to reputational damage and increased support costs.

CWE-352Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) (opens in a new tab)
Compound weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #3OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Implementation
Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
Architecture and Design
Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization Testing Automation (opens in a new tab)
Insecure Direct Object Reference Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V4.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking) (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Domain Search Timing (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Identification (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 10 Jul 2025, 22:35 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-352

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats