VulnerabilityPublished 16 Sep 2026Updated 17 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-89063: Online Scheduling and Appointment Booking System (WordPress plugin) · Insecure Direct Object Reference

Affects Online Scheduling and Appointment Booking System (WordPress plugin)Source CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · public detection template (Nuclei) · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 31 Oct 2026, 08:20 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 1.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 76% 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: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 16 Sep 2026
Detectable: evidence found.
nuclei template: Bookly <=28.1 - IDOR Unauthenticated Sensitive Data Access
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
ladelaOnline Scheduling and Appointment Booking System – Bookly	Affected <=28.1	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Until a fix is available, restrict access to the affected plugin or disable the AI conversation feature to prevent exploitation. Monitor for updates from the vendor ladela regarding an official fix.

Description

The Bookly plugin for WordPress (Online Scheduling and Appointment Booking System) up to version 28.1 suffers from an authorization bypass vulnerability via the 'conversation_id' parameter. This allows unauthenticated attackers to enumerate and access AI booking conversation transcripts of any customer, exposing sensitive personal information such as names, emails, phone numbers, and appointment details. Attackers can also inject arbitrary messages into victim conversations, which are replayed to the AI worker. The vulnerability arises from missing validation on a user-controlled key and the use of sequential integer conversation IDs without ownership or session identifiers.

Impact

An unauthenticated attacker can read sensitive personal information from any customer's AI booking conversation transcript, including names, email addresses, phone numbers, and appointment details. The attacker can also inject arbitrary messages into victim conversations, potentially influencing the AI worker's behavior. This leads to a high confidentiality impact. There is no impact on integrity or availability reported.

Summary

CVE-2026-89063 is an Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) vulnerability in the Bookly WordPress plugin (versions up to and including 28.1). The 'conversation_id' parameter lacks proper validation, enabling unauthenticated attackers to enumerate conversation IDs and access full AI booking conversation transcripts containing sensitive customer data. Additionally, attackers can inject arbitrary messages into these conversations, which are then processed by the Cloud AI worker. The root cause is the absence of ownership or session identifiers for stored AI conversations and the use of sequential numeric conversation IDs.

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 24 Sep 2026, 05:20 UTC

Public exploits and detectiona Nuclei detection template

WeaknessesCWE-639

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats