CVE-2025-13820VulnerabilityPublished 1 Jan 2026Updated 5 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-13820: Comments (WordPress plugin) · Improper Privilege Management

Affects Comments (WordPress plugin)Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 17% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: 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: 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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
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 1 Jan 2026
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 2026-10-26.

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
Comments	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

The primary mitigation is to update the WordPress Comments plugin to version 7.6.40 or later, where the vulnerability has been addressed by improving user identity validation when using the Disqus provider. Organizations should ensure that all WordPress plugins, especially those handling authentication or third-party integrations, are kept up to date with security patches. Additionally, review and audit authentication flows involving third-party providers like Disqus to confirm that proper validation and privilege checks are enforced. Implement monitoring and alerting for unusual login activities or account access patterns that could indicate exploitation attempts. Consider restricting login attempts or adding multi-factor authentication (MFA) at the WordPress site level to reduce the impact of compromised credentials. For sites where immediate patching is not feasible, temporarily disabling Disqus integration or switching to alternative commenting systems can reduce exposure. Finally, educate site administrators about the risks of third-party authentication integrations and the importance of timely updates.

Description

The Comments WordPress plugin before 7.6.40 does not properly validate user's identity when using the disqus.com provider, allowing an attacker to log in to any user (when knowing their email address) when such user does not have an account on disqus.com yet.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized access to user accounts on WordPress sites using the vulnerable Comments plugin with Disqus integration. This unauthorized access compromises confidentiality by exposing user-specific data and potentially sensitive information accessible through the compromised accounts. Although the vulnerability does not directly affect data integrity or availability, attackers gaining access to user accounts could perform actions on behalf of those users, such as posting comments or accessing restricted content, which may indirectly impact trust and reputation. Organizations relying on WordPress for customer engagement, content management, or internal communications could face data breaches or user impersonation incidents. The risk is heightened for entities with large user bases or those in sectors where user identity and data privacy are critical, such as media, e-commerce, and public services. Additionally, the lack of authentication or user interaction requirements makes exploitation easier, increasing the likelihood of automated attacks targeting multiple users. The absence of known exploits in the wild currently reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially as attackers often develop exploits rapidly after vulnerability disclosure.

CWE-269Improper Privilege Management (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Consider following the principle of separation of privilege. Require multiple conditions to be met before permitting access to a system resource.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Restful Privilege Elevation (opens in a new tab)
Privilege Abuse (opens in a new tab)
Privilege Escalation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

wpscan.com/vulnerability/21bc9b41-a967-42dc-9916-bb993b05709c/ (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 8 Jan 2026, 16:26 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-269

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats