Wpforo ForumWordPress extension · Gvectors
CVE-2023-47870
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 · uneditedCross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF), Missing Authorization vulnerability in gVectors Team wpForo Forum wpforo allows Cross Site Request Forgery, Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs leading to forced all users log out.This issue affects wpForo Forum: from n/a through 2.2.6.
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 confidenceThis is a combined CSRF and missing authorization vulnerability in the wpForo Forum WordPress plugin. An attacker can exploit the lack of proper access control and CSRF protection to force all users to log out by accessing functionality that is not properly constrained by ACLs. This allows unauthorized actions to be performed on behalf of authenticated users without their consent.
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
Wpforo ForumWordPress extension
<= 2.2.6CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/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 wpForo Forum plugin is installedLog into WordPress admin and navigate to Plugins > Installed Plugins, or check /wp-content/plugins/wpforo/ directory exists on the serverAffected if wpForo Forum plugin is not present in the WordPress installation
-
Identify installed wpForo Forum versionIn WordPress admin, go to Plugins > Installed Plugins and find the wpForo Forum entry to view the version number, or check the main plugin file header for the Version fieldAffected if The installed version is 2.2.6 or lower
-
Confirm logout functionality is accessibleInspect the wpForo Forum logout link/button in the frontend or check the logout action URL pattern in the plugin files under /wp-content/plugins/wpforo/Affected if Logout functionality exists and is reachable without explicit admin privileges
-
Verify ACL enforcement on logout actionReview wpForo Forum access control configuration in WordPress admin under wpForo > Settings > Access to confirm if logout is restricted to appropriate user roles onlyAffected if Logout action can be triggered by unauthenticated users or users without proper permissions
A user is affected if wpForo Forum plugin version 2.2.6 or lower is installed and the logout functionality lacks proper authorization checks and CSRF token validation.
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 dataUpdate wpForo Forum to the latest version which should include proper CSRF token validation and authorization checks for sensitive actions like user logout functionality.
Fix this in Wpforo Forum
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-47870 — 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-2023-47870 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