VulnerabilityPublished 28 May 2026

CVE-2026-6455: WP Contact Form 7 DB Handler · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Affects WP Contact Form 7 DB HandlerSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.1 High.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.1High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 16% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
Availability: High

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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 28 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 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
yudizWP Contact Form 7 DB Handler	Affected <=3.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Until an official fix is available, administrators should avoid interacting with untrusted pages while logged into WordPress with administrative privileges. Monitoring for plugin updates from yudiz is recommended to apply any forthcoming official fixes. No vendor advisory or patch links are currently provided.

Description

The WP Contact Form 7 DB Handler plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery leading to Arbitrary File Deletion via SQL Injection and PHP Object Injection in versions up to and including 3.0. This is due to a missing nonce verification in the process_bulk_action() function, the nonce check is only executed when _wpnonce is present in the POST body, allowing it to be trivially bypassed by omitting the field, combined with the use of an unsanitized, unparameterized user-supplied value in a numeric SQL context (WHERE ID = $ID) and the unsafe deserialization of the query result's post_content field. An attacker can craft a CSRF page that tricks a logged-in administrator into triggering a UNION-based SQL injection payload (using CHAR() to avoid esc_sql quote-escaping) that returns a malicious serialized PHP array as post_content; upon deserialization, array values associated with keys containing 'ys_cfdbh_file' are used as file paths appended to the uploads directory path without any path traversal validation, and then passed to wp_delete_file(), allowing the attacker to delete arbitrary files on the server (e.g., wp-config.php, system files).

Impact

Successful exploitation allows an attacker to delete arbitrary files on the affected server, including critical configuration files such as wp-config.php and potentially system files. This compromises the integrity and availability of the WordPress installation and the underlying system. The attack requires a logged-in administrator to be tricked into triggering the malicious request, but no prior privileges or authentication bypass is needed beyond that. There is no confidentiality impact reported.

Summary

CVE-2026-6455 affects the yudiz WP Contact Form 7 DB Handler WordPress plugin through a missing nonce verification in the process_bulk_action() function. The nonce check is bypassed by omitting the _wpnonce POST field, enabling a CSRF attack. This is combined with an unparameterized SQL query vulnerable to UNION-based SQL injection, allowing an attacker to inject a malicious serialized PHP array into the post_content field. Unsafe deserialization of this data leads to PHP object injection, where file paths derived from the injected data are passed to wp_delete_file() without path traversal validation. This chain of vulnerabilities allows an attacker to delete arbitrary files on the server, including critical WordPress and system files. The vulnerability is rated high severity with a CVSS score of 8.1 and requires user interaction but no privileges.

CWE-352Cross-Site Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
Compound weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #3OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Implementation
Ensure that the application is free of cross-site scripting issues (CWE-79), because most CSRF defenses can be bypassed using attacker-controlled script.
Architecture and Design
Generate a unique nonce for each form, place the nonce into the form, and verify the nonce upon receipt of the form. Be sure that the nonce is not predictable (CWE-330).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Authorization Testing Automation (opens in a new tab)
Insecure Direct Object Reference Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V4.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
JSON Hijacking (aka JavaScript Hijacking) (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Domain Search Timing (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Identification (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site 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 28 May 2026, 07:48 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-352

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats