WordPressCMS
CVE-2007-0109
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedwp-login.php in WordPress 2.0.5 and earlier displays different error messages if a user exists or not, which allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information and facilitates brute force attacks.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceIn WordPress 2.0.5 and earlier, wp-login.php returns distinct error messages when a username exists versus when it does not, allowing remote attackers to enumerate valid usernames. This information disclosure facilitates subsequent brute force attacks by narrowing the target list.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
WordPressCMS
= 2.0= 2.0.1= 2.0.2= 2.0.3= 2.0.4= 2.0.5CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:P/I:N/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify WordPress installationCheck if wp-login.php exists in the web root directory by accessing your site's /wp-login.php endpointAffected if wp-login.php is accessible on the server
-
Determine WordPress versionView the source of any WordPress page and look for the version meta tag in the <head> section, or read the $wp_version variable from wp-includes/version.phpAffected if Version is 2.0, 2.0.1, 2.0.2, 2.0.3, 2.0.4, or 2.0.5
-
Test login error for non-existent usernameSubmit a login form with a clearly invalid username (e.g., 'nonexistentuser123') and any password. Record the exact error message returnedAffected if An error message is returned indicating the username does not exist
-
Test login error for existing username with wrong passwordSubmit a login form with a known valid username (e.g., 'admin') and an incorrect password. Record the exact error message returnedAffected if An error message is returned indicating the password is incorrect
-
Compare error message差异Compare the two error messages from steps 3 and 4. Check if they are worded differently or contain different informationAffected if The error messages differ in wording or content, revealing whether the username exists
If the WordPress version is 2.0 through 2.0.5 AND the login page returns distinct error messages for non-existent usernames versus incorrect passwords, the environment is affected by this username enumeration vulnerability.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade WordPress to a version that returns generic error messages for both invalid usernames and incorrect passwords, or implement custom login error handling that provides uniform messaging regardless of username validity.
Fix this in WordPress
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,424.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2007-0109 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2007-0109 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data