CVE-2026-0722 — Shield Security <= 21.0.8 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to SQL Injection
The Shield Security plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 21.0.8. This is due to the plugin allowing nonce verification to be bypassed via user-supplied parameter in the 'isNonceVerifyRequired' function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to execute SQL injection attacks, extracting sensitive information from the database, via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.
Who exploits it and how urgent it is
A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.
How the score was calculated
- EPSS 0.4% (30-day exploitation probability)+5
- Technical severity (medium)+3
The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.
CISA SSVC assessment CISA
Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.
Remediation
Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.
No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.
First 24 hours
Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.
- Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Paultgoodchild Shield: Blocks Bots, Protects Users, and Prevents Security Breaches).
- The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
- No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
- Exploitation requires user interaction: tighten email/web filtering and warn affected users.
- Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (injection), errors and authentication anomalies.
Affected scope
Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.
| Vendor | Product | Versions | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paultgoodchild | Shield: Blocks Bots, Protects Users, and Prevents Security Breaches | ≤ 21.0.8 | Vulnerable | CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
Attack characteristics
The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6.5 | CVSS 3.1 | Medium | 2.8 | 3.6 | security@wordfence.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| 6.5 | CVSS 3.1 | Medium | — | — | Wordfence via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N (score shown at the top: security@wordfence.com) Weakness MITRE
Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.
EPSS over time FIRST
Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 14, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.42%
Detection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.
- Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
- Look for parameters with command/query metacharacters and unexpected child processes of the service.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- Affected products added · paultgoodchild/shield: blocks bots, protects users, and prevents security breaches
- SSVC assessment updated
- Record published
- CVSS changed · 6.5
- Source status changed · → Deferred
- Record created in this database
- CVE published
Source activity
Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.
- 1× Official description updated · Oct 13, 2026 – Oct 13, 2026
References
6 on the record
- research.cleantalk.org/cve-2026-0722/
- plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset
- www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/f53d9579-56e9-41aa-b6b7-2472734ee719
- plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wp-simple-firewall/tags/21.0.8/src/lib/src/ActionRouter/Actio
- plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wp-simple-firewall/tags/21.0.8/src/lib/src/ActionRouter/Captu
- plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wp-simple-firewall/tags/21.0.8/src/lib/src/Tables/DataTables/
Elsewhere on this site
Related CVEs (same products)
- Medium CVE-2026-0561 Shield Security <= 21.0.8 - Unauthenticated Reflected Cross-Site Scripting via 'message' Parameter Feb 19, 2026
- Medium CVE-2025-14427 Shield Security: Blocks Bots, Protects Users, and Prevents Security Breaches <= 21.0.9 - Missing Authorization to Authenticated (Subscriber+) Email MFA Update Feb 19, 2026
- Medium CVE-2025-15370 Shield Security <= 21.0.9 - Authenticated (Subscriber+) Insecure Direct Object Reference to Disable Google Authenticator Jan 16, 2026
Not in any source we poll
Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.
- No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
- No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
- No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
- No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.
Answered from this record
Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.
What should defenders know first?
CVE-2026-0722 is "Shield Security <= 21.0.8 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to SQL Injection", rated Medium. It affects Shield: Blocks Bots, Protects Users, and Prevents Security Breaches (Paultgoodchild); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 6.5 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.42% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.
Comments
Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.
No comments yet.
Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.