CVE-2026-0929VulnerabilityPublished 16 Feb 2026Updated 17 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-0929: RegistrationMagic (WordPress plugin) · Missing Authorization

Affects RegistrationMagic (WordPress plugin)Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium : upgrade to 6.0.7.2 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 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 14% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 6.0.7.2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
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: 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: 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 16 Feb 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

Upgrade RegistrationMagic (WordPress plugin) to 6.0.7.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
RegistrationMagic	Affected <6.0.7.2	Fixed in 6.0.7.2

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, organizations should upgrade the RegistrationMagic plugin to version 6.0.7.2 or later where the authorization checks are properly implemented. Until patching is possible, administrators should restrict subscriber-level account creation and review user roles to minimize exposure. Implementing strict user role management and monitoring form creation activities can help detect unauthorized changes. Additionally, applying the principle of least privilege by limiting subscriber capabilities or disabling unnecessary plugin features reduces risk. Web application firewalls (WAFs) can be configured to alert on unusual form creation requests. Regular security audits of WordPress plugins and user permissions are recommended to identify and remediate similar authorization issues proactively.

Description

The RegistrationMagic WordPress plugin before 6.0.7.2 does not have proper capability checks, allowing subscribers and above to create forms on the site.

Impact

Organizations running WordPress sites with the vulnerable RegistrationMagic plugin risk unauthorized form creation by users with subscriber-level access or higher. This can lead to integrity issues such as unauthorized content injection, phishing form deployment, or manipulation of site workflows. While confidentiality and availability are not directly impacted, the unauthorized forms could be used as vectors for social engineering or to collect sensitive user data illicitly. The attack requires an authenticated user account, so the threat is more relevant in environments where subscriber accounts are granted to untrusted or external users. The scope of impact depends on the number of sites using this plugin and the level of access granted to subscribers. Exploitation could undermine trust in the affected websites and potentially lead to reputational damage or compliance issues if user data is mishandled.

CWE-862Missing Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #4OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

wpscan.com/vulnerability/c0f17d83-6199-4676-90ec-4fba1e7fcf0f/ (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 24 Feb 2026, 00:01 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-862

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats