VulnerabilityPublished 26 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-96525: MCP Server for WordPress · Missing Authorization

Affects MCP Server for WordPressSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.7 Low : upgrade to 1.8.2 when convenient.

Data as of 9 Nov 2026, 23:24 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

2.7Low

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

EPSS

0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 5% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

Exploitation: No evidence of active exploitation and no public proof of concept
Automatable: Attackers cannot reliably automate steps 1–4 of the kill chain
Technical impact: Limited control over the software or limited information exposure

CISA SSVC assessment, 2026-09-26.

Patch

Available – fixed in 1.8.2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
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: 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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
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 26 Sep 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 9 Nov 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 MCP Server for WordPress to 1.8.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
MCP Server for WordPress	Affected <1.8.2	Fixed in 1.8.2

AI-suggested

Upgrade the MCP Server for WordPress plugin to version 1.8.2 or later, where this authorization issue has been fixed. No additional mitigation is required once the plugin is updated.

Description

CVE-2026-96525 is a vulnerability in the MCP Server for WordPress plugin before version 1.8.2. It allows users with the Contributor role to create, update, and delete site-wide workflow configurations via REST routes without proper ownership or capability checks. This includes workflows created by administrators, potentially leading to unauthorized modification of workflow settings.

Impact

Users with Contributor privileges can modify, delete, or create workflows site-wide, including those created by administrators. This could lead to unauthorized changes in workflow configurations, affecting the integrity of site operations. There is no impact on confidentiality or availability. No known exploits are reported in the wild.

Summary

The MCP Server for WordPress plugin versions prior to 1.8.2 lack sufficient authorization checks on REST API endpoints related to workflow creation, update, and deletion. Specifically, users assigned the Contributor role can bypass ownership and capability validations, enabling them to manipulate workflows across the site, including those established by administrators. This is classified under CWE-862 (Missing Authorization). The vulnerability has a CVSS 3.1 base score of 2.7, indicating low severity, with impact limited to integrity (I:L) and no confidentiality or availability impact. The issue was fixed in version 1.8.2.

CWE-862Missing Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #4OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

wpscan.com/vulnerability/f814fb88-4198-4ba0-972c-658a1d672289/ (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Oct 2026, 08:22 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-862

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats