CVE-2026-109979VulnerabilityPublished 28 Oct 2026

The Related Posts for WordPress plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Sensitive Information Exposure in versions up

Source GCVE Database

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-109979· Medium 4.3

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 28 Oct 2026, 10:29 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
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 28 Oct 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: 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 26 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.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, 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-88jc-p652-m75v

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
barrykooijRelated Posts for WordPress	Affected <=3.0.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Users should monitor the vendor advisory for updates. Until a fix is released, restrict Contributor-level access to trusted users only and consider disabling or replacing the Related Posts for WordPress plugin if sensitive post titles must be protected.

Description

The Related Posts for WordPress plugin (up to version 3.0.0) has a vulnerability that allows authenticated users with Contributor-level access or higher to read titles of non-public posts authored by others. This occurs because the plugin fails to properly verify read permissions on child post IDs when linking posts, exposing titles of drafts, pending, private, future, or trashed posts in the editor meta box.

Impact

An attacker with Contributor-level or higher privileges can read the titles of arbitrary non-public posts (including drafts, pending, private, future, and trashed posts) authored by other users with higher privileges. This exposure is limited to post titles only and does not include content or other sensitive data. The vulnerability does not affect availability or integrity.

Summary

CVE-2026-109979 describes a sensitive information exposure vulnerability in the Related Posts for WordPress plugin versions up to and including 3.0.0. The flaw arises from improper access control in the 'rp4wp_create_link' parameter on the hidden 'rp4wp_link_related' admin page. Although nonce verification and parent post edit permissions are checked, the plugin does not validate whether the user has read access to the child post IDs supplied by the attacker. Consequently, arbitrary child post IDs are stored and later retrieved without capability checks, allowing an authenticated user with Contributor-level privileges or higher to view titles of non-public posts belonging to higher-privileged users by linking those posts to their own drafts and reading the meta box output.

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 28 Oct 2026, 10:29 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-862

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats