VulnerabilityPublished 26 Sep 2026

CVE-2026-96525: The MCP Server for WordPress WordPress plugin before 1.8.2 does not perform an ownership or sufficient capability check on its workflow create

Source GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-96525· Low 2.7

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

Data as of 11 Nov 2026, 23:25 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.
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 11 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.

ghsa-cjm9-5j7w-4gvf

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

A fix is available in MCP Server for WordPress plugin version 1.8.2. Users should upgrade to version 1.8.2 or later to remediate this vulnerability. No other mitigation guidance is provided or necessary.

Description

The MCP Server for WordPress plugin versions before 1.8.2 lacks proper ownership or capability checks on its workflow create, update, and delete REST API routes. This flaw allows users with the Contributor role to modify, delete, and create site-wide workflow configurations, including those created by administrators. The vulnerability has a low CVSS score of 2.7 and does not impact confidentiality or availability but allows limited integrity modification.

Impact

The vulnerability allows users with Contributor-level privileges to alter site-wide workflow configurations, potentially disrupting administrative workflows or causing unintended behavior. There is no impact on confidentiality or availability. The integrity impact is limited to modification of workflow configurations.

Summary

CVE-2026-96525 describes an authorization bypass vulnerability in the MCP Server for WordPress plugin prior to version 1.8.2. The plugin fails to enforce ownership or sufficient capability checks on REST routes related to workflow creation, updating, and deletion. Consequently, users assigned the Contributor role can perform unauthorized modifications to site-wide workflow configurations, including those established by administrators. This issue is classified under CWE-862 (Missing Authorization).

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

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 27 Sep 2026, 04:37 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-862

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats