VulnerabilityPublished 13 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-22215: gVectors wpDiscuz · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Affects gVectors wpDiscuzSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 7.6.47 when convenient.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 5% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 7.6.47

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Passive
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Passive: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires limited interaction by the targeted user with the vulnerable system and the attacker’s payload. These interactions would be considered involuntary and do not require that the user actively subvert protections built into the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 13 Mar 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 30 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.
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 gVectors wpDiscuz to 7.6.47.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
gVectorswpDiscuz	Affected <7.6.47	Fixed in 7.6.47

AI-suggested

Organizations should immediately update wpDiscuz to version 7.6.47 or later, where the CSRF protection via nonce validation is implemented. If immediate patching is not feasible, administrators should consider disabling the follow feature or restricting access to the getFollowsPage() functionality through web application firewalls or custom access controls. Implementing Content Security Policy (CSP) headers and SameSite cookies can reduce the risk of CSRF attacks by limiting cross-origin requests. Monitoring web server logs for unusual requests to the follows page handler can help detect attempted exploitation. Educating users about phishing risks and avoiding clicking on suspicious links reduces the likelihood of successful user interaction-based attacks. Plugin developers should adopt secure coding practices, including consistent use of nonce validation for all state-changing requests. Regular security audits and vulnerability scanning of WordPress plugins are recommended to identify and remediate similar issues proactively.

Description

CVE-2026-22215 is a medium severity Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability affecting wpDiscuz versions prior to 7.6.47. The flaw exists in the getFollowsPage() function, which lacks nonce validation, allowing attackers to craft malicious requests that trigger unauthorized actions. Exploitation can lead to enumeration of user follow relationships and manipulation of follow data without user consent. No authentication or privileges are required, but user interaction is necessary to execute the attack. Although no known exploits are currently in the wild, the vulnerability poses a risk to websites using vulnerable wpDiscuz versions. Organizations should prioritize patching or applying mitigations to prevent unauthorized data manipulation and privacy breaches. The threat primarily affects WordPress sites globally, with heightened risk in countries with widespread WordPress adoption. The CVSS 4.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is unauthorized manipulation of user follow data and enumeration of follow relationships, which can lead to privacy violations and potential social engineering or targeted attacks. Attackers can exploit this flaw to alter user interactions and relationships within the commenting system, undermining user trust and the integrity of community engagement. Although it does not directly lead to remote code execution or data exfiltration, the ability to manipulate user data without consent can have reputational damage and compliance implications, especially for sites handling sensitive user information. The vulnerability affects any WordPress site using vulnerable versions of wpDiscuz, which is a popular plugin, thus potentially impacting a large number of websites globally. The requirement for user interaction limits automated exploitation but does not eliminate risk, especially in scenarios involving targeted phishing or malicious links. Organizations relying on wpDiscuz for community engagement may face disruptions and loss of user confidence if exploited.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 20 Mar 2026, 02:40 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats