VulnerabilityPublished 11 Nov 2026

CVE-2026-118439: Limit Login Attempts Security (WordPress plugin) · Server-Side Request Forgery

Affects Limit Login Attempts Security (WordPress plugin)Source CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited : upgrade to 3.4.2 soon.

Data as of 11 Nov 2026, 06:34 UTC

Severity

High

Rated High by Threat Radar's AI analysis · CVSS not yet scored by NVD

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

Patch: Available – fixed in 3.4.2

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 11 Nov 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 10 Nov 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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

Upgrade Limit Login Attempts Security (WordPress plugin) to 3.4.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Limit Login Attempts Security	Affected <3.4.2	Fixed in 3.4.2

AI-suggested

Upgrade the Limit Login Attempts Security plugin to version 3.4.2 or later, where this SSRF vulnerability has been fixed. No additional mitigation is required once the plugin is updated.

Description

A Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in the Limit Login Attempts Security WordPress plugin versions before 3.4.2. This flaw allows users with administrator privileges to cause the site to make HTTP requests to arbitrary hosts, including internal network addresses, due to improper validation of a user-supplied setup value.

Impact

An attacker with administrator privileges can exploit this vulnerability to make the WordPress site send requests to arbitrary hosts, including internal network resources. This could lead to unauthorized access to internal systems or services that are not directly accessible externally. However, exploitation requires administrative access, limiting the attack surface.

Summary

The Limit Login Attempts Security WordPress plugin prior to version 3.4.2 contains a server-side request forgery (SSRF) vulnerability (CWE-918). The plugin does not properly validate the destination of server-side requests constructed from administrator-controlled setup values. This allows an authenticated administrator to make the server issue requests to arbitrary external or internal hosts, potentially exposing internal services or sensitive information.

CWE-918Server-Side Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #22OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web server receives a URL or similar request from an upstream component and retrieves the contents of this URL, but it does not sufficiently ensure that the request is being sent to the expected destination.
Implementation · Operation
If there is a known list of applications, IP, hostname, and/or domains to which the product is allowed to communicate, then use allowlists to ensure that outgoing requests are restricted to these known entities. The allowlists could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
Implementation · Operation
If the product is expected to be able to connect to arbitrary IP addresses or domains, consider using a denylist that includes private network addresses, internal domain names, etc. The denylist could be in the application code or possibly enforced by firewalls or network segmentation.
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Unvalidated Redirects and Forwards (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.6.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Server Side Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

wpscan.com/vulnerability/9f7a9969-354c-4b9e-b56f-d832d89741b5/ (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 11 Nov 2026, 06:34 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats