VulnerabilityPublished 11 Jun 2026

CVE-2026-46697: stefanbohacek fediverse-embeds-wordpress-plugin · Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF)

Affects stefanbohacek fediverse-embeds-wordpress-pluginSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High : upgrade to 1.5.8 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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 1.5.8

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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 11 Jun 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 stefanbohacek fediverse-embeds-wordpress-plugin to 1.5.8.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
stefanbohacekfediverse-embeds-wordpress-plugin	Affected <1.5.8	Fixed in 1.5.8

AI-suggested

This vulnerability has been patched in fediverse-embeds WordPress plugin version 1.5.8. Users should upgrade to version 1.5.8 or later to remediate this issue. No other mitigation is required once the plugin is updated.

Description

Fediverse Embeds embeds fediverse posts on WordPress sites. Prior to version 1.5.8, Fediverse Embeds registered an unauthenticated REST route ftf/media-proxy (includes/Media_Proxy.php) with permission_callback => __return_true that accepted a base64-encoded URL and forwarded it to wp_remote_get($url) without enforcing any allowlist. The plugin's source contained a comment block explicitly acknowledging that the request should be validated against allowed fediverse domains, but in 1.5.7 the validation only set a local $can_download_media flag that was never read. The full response body was echoed back to the caller, so this was a full-read SSRF / open proxy reachable by any anonymous visitor. This issue has been patched in version 1.5.8.

Impact

An attacker can exploit this SSRF vulnerability to make the server perform arbitrary HTTP requests to internal or external resources and retrieve the full response body. This can lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information accessible to the server, potentially including internal network resources or protected services. The vulnerability does not allow modification of data or denial of service but poses a significant confidentiality risk.

Summary

The fediverse-embeds WordPress plugin registered an unauthenticated REST API endpoint 'ftf/media-proxy' which accepted a base64-encoded URL parameter. This URL was passed directly to wp_remote_get() without enforcing an allowlist or proper validation, despite a comment in the source code indicating such validation was intended. The plugin only set a local flag indicating permission to download media, but this flag was never used to block requests. Consequently, any anonymous visitor could use this endpoint as an open proxy to retrieve the full response body from arbitrary URLs, constituting a full-read SSRF vulnerability. This vulnerability was fixed in version 1.5.8.

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

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 11 Jun 2026, 18:15 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-918

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats