VulnerabilityPublished 6 May 2026

CVE-2026-6344: Fluent Forms (WordPress plugin) · Path Traversal

Affects Fluent Forms (WordPress plugin)Source CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.9 Medium.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 46% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
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: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
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 6 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
techjewelFluent Forms – Customizable Contact Forms, Survey, Quiz, & Conversational Form Builder	Affected <=6.2.1	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Until an official fix is released, restrict administrator access to trusted users only and avoid configuring admin notification emails to attach file-upload fields. Monitor vendor channels for updates and apply patches promptly once available.

Description

The Fluent Forms plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Arbitrary File Read in versions up to and including 6.2.1. This is due to insufficient path validation in the getAttachments() method of EmailNotificationActions, which resolves attacker-supplied file-upload URLs into filesystem paths without verifying that the resolved path stays inside the WordPress uploads directory: a strpos() prefix check on the raw URL can be bypassed with traversal sequences, wp_normalize_path() does not resolve ".\..\" segments, and file_exists() then resolves them at the kernel level. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers with administrator access to read arbitrary files readable by the web-server user — including wp-config.php with its database credentials and authentication salts — by submitting a form whose admin notification is configured to attach a file-upload field and supplying a crafted URL of the shape <upload_baseurl>/../../<target> as the file-field value. The resolved file is attached to the outbound admin-notification email via wp_mail(). While the email can be triggered by unauthenticated users, the email recipient is not user-controlled.

Impact

An authenticated attacker with administrator access can read arbitrary files on the web server that are readable by the web-server user. This includes sensitive files such as wp-config.php, which contains database credentials and authentication salts. The exposure occurs through admin notification emails that attach files from attacker-supplied URLs. While the email trigger can be initiated by unauthenticated users, the email recipient is fixed and not attacker-controlled, limiting the scope of data exfiltration. The vulnerability does not impact integrity or availability, only confidentiality.

Summary

The Fluent Forms plugin for WordPress suffers from an arbitrary file read vulnerability due to improper pathname limitation (CWE-22) in the getAttachments() method of EmailNotificationActions. The method attempts to validate file-upload URLs with a strpos() prefix check and wp_normalize_path(), but these checks can be bypassed using directory traversal sequences (e.g., '../../'). As a result, authenticated attackers with administrator privileges can supply crafted URLs that resolve to files outside the WordPress uploads directory. These files are then attached to admin notification emails via wp_mail(), exposing their contents. The vulnerability affects versions up to and including 6.2.1. There is no vendor-provided patch or official remediation at this time.

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (Path Traversal) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
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.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (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 6 May 2026, 07:37 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats