User Access ManagerWordPress extension · User Access Manager Project
CVE-2011-5328
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 · uneditedThe user-access-manager plugin before 1.2 for WordPress has CSRF.
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 confidenceThe User Access Manager WordPress plugin before version 1.2 contains a Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability. This allows attackers to trick authenticated administrators into performing unintended actions by forcing their browser to send malicious requests, potentially leading to unauthorized modification of user access permissions, user account changes, or privilege escalation within the WordPress site.
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
User Access ManagerWordPress extension
< 1.2CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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.
-
Verify User Access Manager plugin is installedLog in to WordPress admin panel and navigate to Plugins > Installed Plugins. Look for 'User Access Manager' or 'UAM' in the list of active and inactive plugins.Affected if The plugin is not present in the WordPress installation at all, then the user is not affected.
-
Check the installed plugin versionIn the WordPress plugins list, locate the User Access Manager entry. The version number is displayed below the plugin name. Alternatively, access the plugin directory via FTP or file manager (usually wp-content/plugins/user-access-manager/) and open the main plugin file or readme.txt to find the version number.Affected if The plugin version shown is less than 1.2 (for example, 1.1, 1.0, or any version without a decimal starting with 1). Compare your version number to the affected range of versions less than 1.2.
-
Confirm plugin is active on the siteIn the WordPress plugins admin page, verify whether User Access Manager shows as 'Active' under the plugin status column. An inactive plugin may still pose minimal risk but the vulnerability only affects active usage.Affected if The plugin is active and the version is below 1.2, indicating the site is vulnerable to CSRF attacks.
A user is affected if the User Access Manager plugin is installed, active, and its version is less than 1.2, meaning the version number falls within the affected range of versions before 1.2.
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 data1.2
Update the User Access Manager plugin to version 1.2 or later, which includes CSRF protection mechanisms. Additionally, implement anti-CSRF tokens (nonces) for all state-changing operations and consider enabling SameSite cookie attributes.
Fix this in User Access Manager
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-5328 — 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-2011-5328 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