VulnerabilityPublished 20 May 2026

CVE-2026-6072: Oliver POS (WordPress plugin) · Insecure Direct Object Reference

Affects Oliver POS (WordPress plugin)Source CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 40% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: 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 20 May 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 29 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
oliverposOliver POS – A WooCommerce Point of Sale (POS)	Affected <=2.4.2.6	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Until an official fix is available, users should avoid fresh installations without completing the connection flow that sets the authorization token. Monitoring for unusual API access and restricting access to the POS API endpoints by network controls may reduce exposure. Do not rely on the current authorization mechanism as it is vulnerable to bypass.

Description

The Oliver POS – A WooCommerce Point of Sale (POS) plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key in all versions up to and including 2.4.2.6. The plugin protects its entire /wp-json/pos-bridge/* REST API namespace through the oliver_pos_rest_authentication() permission callback, which uses a loose PHP comparison (==) to compare the attacker-supplied 'OliverAuth' header value against the 'oliver_pos_authorization_token' option. On fresh installations where the admin has not yet completed the connection flow, this option is unset (get_option returns false). Due to PHP's type juggling, the loose comparison '0' == false evaluates to true, allowing an unauthenticated attacker to bypass authentication by sending 'OliverAuth: 0'. This grants full access to all POS API endpoints, enabling attackers to read user data (including administrator details), update user profiles (including email addresses), and delete non-admin users. An admin account email reset can lead to site takeover.

Impact

Successful exploitation grants unauthenticated attackers full access to the POS REST API endpoints. Attackers can read sensitive user information including administrator details, modify user profiles such as email addresses, and delete non-administrative users. This can lead to a complete site takeover if an administrator's email is reset via the compromised API. The vulnerability compromises confidentiality and integrity but does not affect availability.

Summary

The Oliver POS plugin protects its /wp-json/pos-bridge/* REST API namespace using a permission callback that compares the 'OliverAuth' header against a stored authorization token using a loose PHP equality check (==). On fresh installations where the authorization token is unset (returns false), the comparison '0' == false evaluates to true, enabling an attacker to bypass authentication by sending 'OliverAuth: 0'. This bypass grants full access to all POS API endpoints, allowing unauthorized reading of user data, updating user profiles, and deleting non-admin users. The vulnerability is tracked as CVE-2026-6072 with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 6.5 (medium severity).

CWE-639Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #24OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The system's authorization functionality does not prevent one user from gaining access to another user's data or record by modifying the key value identifying the data.
Architecture and Design
For each and every data access, ensure that the user has sufficient privilege to access the record that is being requested.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Make sure that the key that is used in the lookup of a specific user's record is not controllable externally by the user or that any tampering can be detected.
Architecture and Design
Use encryption in order to make it more difficult to guess other legitimate values of the key or associate a digital signature with the key so that the server can verify that there has been no tampering.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Authorization Testing Automation (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Insecure Direct Object Reference Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V4.1.2 (opens in a new tab)
V4.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V8.3.8 (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 20 May 2026, 02:48 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-639

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats