VulnerabilityPublished 20 Jul 2024Updated 1 Aug 2024

CVE-2024-3934: Mercado Pago payments for WooCommerce (WordPress plugin) · Path Traversal

Affects Mercado Pago payments for WooCommerce (WordPress plugin)Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium · fixed in 7.5.1 : update Mercado Pago payments for WooCommerce (WordPress plugin) when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 51% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 7.5.1

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 20 Jul 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 26 Oct 2026.

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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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
claudiosanches Mercado Pago payments for WooCommerce	Affected =7.3.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Organizations should immediately upgrade the Mercado Pago payments for WooCommerce plugin to version 7.6.2 or later, which fully addresses the vulnerability by fixing both arbitrary file download and missing authorization. Until the upgrade is applied, restrict subscriber-level access to trusted users only and monitor for suspicious activity related to file downloads. Implement web application firewall (WAF) rules to detect and block path traversal attempts targeting the mercadopagoDownloadLog function. Review server file permissions to minimize exposure of sensitive files and logs. Conduct regular security audits of WordPress plugins and maintain an inventory of installed versions to quickly identify vulnerable components. Additionally, consider isolating the WordPress environment and using security plugins that enforce strict input validation and access controls. Educate administrators and users about the risks of granting unnecessary privileges and enforce the principle of least privilege for user roles.

Description

The Mercado Pago payments for WooCommerce plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Path Traversal in versions 7.3.0 to 7.5.1 via the mercadopagoDownloadLog function. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with subscriber-level access and above, to download and read the contents of arbitrary files on the server, which can contain sensitive information. The arbitrary file download was patched in 7.5.1, while the missing authorization was corrected in version 7.6.2.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-3934 is unauthorized disclosure of sensitive server-side files, which can include configuration files, API keys, payment credentials, or user data. This compromises confidentiality and can lead to further attacks such as credential theft, privilege escalation, or data breaches. Since the vulnerability requires only subscriber-level authentication, attackers can exploit it even with limited access, increasing the attack surface. For organizations running WooCommerce stores with Mercado Pago payments, this can result in loss of customer trust, regulatory penalties, and financial damage. The vulnerability does not directly affect data integrity or availability, but the exposure of sensitive information can facilitate subsequent attacks that do. The risk is particularly significant for e-commerce businesses handling payment transactions and personal data. Although no known exploits are currently active, the medium severity score and ease of exploitation warrant prompt remediation to prevent potential compromise.

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (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 26 Feb 2026, 06:30 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats