CVE-2024-53806
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 · uneditedMissing Authorization vulnerability in yonifre Maspik – Spam blacklist contact-forms-anti-spam allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Maspik – Spam blacklist: from n/a through <= 2.2.7.
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 · moderate confidenceA missing authorization vulnerability in the Maspik WordPress plugin (versions up to 2.2.7) allows unauthenticated or improperly authenticated attackers to bypass access control checks due to incorrectly configured security levels, potentially enabling manipulation of spam blacklist settings or submission of spam through contact forms.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L
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 if Maspik plugin is installedCheck the WordPress plugin directory or wp-admin/plugins.php for the Maspik - Spam blacklist pluginAffected if Maspik plugin is present on the WordPress site
-
Determine the installed Maspik versionRead the plugin header in maspik.php or check the version displayed in wp-admin/plugins.php under the plugin nameAffected if The version is 2.2.7 or lower (any version up to and including 2.2.7)
-
Inspect the plugin security level settingAccess the Maspik plugin settings page in wp-admin and look for a security level or access control configuration option (often labeled as Security Level, Protection Level, or similar)Affected if The security level is set to a value that permits unauthenticated or low-privilege access to sensitive functions
-
Test if blacklist settings are modifiable without authenticationAttempt a direct POST request to the plugin AJAX endpoint (commonly /wp-admin/admin-ajax.php?action=maspik_save or similar) without providing valid authentication credentialsAffected if The request succeeds or returns a successful response indicating settings were accepted without authentication error
-
Verify contact form submission handlingReview the Maspik plugin configuration to confirm which user roles or conditions are required for form submissions to be processed; check if unauthenticated submissions bypass spam filteringAffected if Unauthenticated form submissions can bypass spam checks or if spam can be submitted through the protected forms
If Maspik plugin versions 2.2.7 or lower are installed with an insecure security level configuration that allows unauthenticated access, the site is affected by this authorization bypass 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 dataUpdate Maspik – Spam blacklist plugin to the latest version to patch the authorization bypass. Until patched, consider deploying a WAF rule or additional access controls to restrict access to plugin endpoints.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,592.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-53806 — 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-2024-53806 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