VulnerabilityPublished 21 Mar 2026Updated 8 Apr 2026

CVE-2026-3641: Appmax (WordPress plugin) · Improper Input Validation

Affects Appmax (WordPress plugin)Source CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 24% 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:N/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
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: 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: 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 21 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
appmaxplataformaAppmax	Affected <=1.0.3	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Since the plugin is not a cloud service, users must rely on vendor advisories for updates. Until a fix is available, it is recommended to disable or restrict access to the /webhook-system REST API endpoint to prevent unauthenticated requests. Implementing custom webhook validation or firewall rules to block unauthorized access may mitigate exploitation risk. Monitor the vendor's communications for any forthcoming patches or official guidance.

Description

The Appmax plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Improper Input Validation in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.3. This is due to the plugin registering a public REST API webhook endpoint at /webhook-system without implementing webhook signature validation, secret verification, or any mechanism to authenticate that incoming webhook requests genuinely originate from the legitimate Appmax payment service. The plugin directly processes untrusted attacker-controlled input from the 'event' and 'data' parameters without verifying the webhook's authenticity. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to craft malicious webhook payloads that can modify the status of existing WooCommerce orders (e.g., changing them to processing, refunded, cancelled, or pending), create entirely new WooCommerce orders with arbitrary data, create new WooCommerce products with attacker-controlled names/descriptions/prices, and write arbitrary values to order post metadata by spoofing legitimate webhook events.

Impact

The vulnerability allows unauthenticated attackers to modify the integrity of WooCommerce data managed by the Appmax plugin. Specifically, attackers can change order statuses (processing, refunded, cancelled, pending), create new orders or products with arbitrary data, and write arbitrary values to order metadata. There is no direct impact on confidentiality or availability reported. The integrity of e-commerce transactions and product data is compromised, potentially leading to fraudulent orders, financial discrepancies, or manipulation of store inventory and order processing.

Summary

CVE-2026-3641 describes an improper input validation vulnerability (CWE-20) in the Appmax WordPress plugin (versions up to 1.0.3). The plugin registers a public REST API webhook endpoint at /webhook-system that lacks any form of webhook signature validation, secret verification, or authentication mechanisms. Consequently, attackers can send unauthenticated webhook requests with malicious 'event' and 'data' parameters. This enables them to manipulate WooCommerce orders by changing statuses, creating new orders or products with attacker-controlled content, and modifying order metadata. The vulnerability is rated medium severity with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 5.3, reflecting its network attack vector, low attack complexity, no privileges required, and no user interaction needed.

CWE-20Improper Input Validation (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #18OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of…
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (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 9 Apr 2026, 18:49 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-20

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats