CVE-2026-0722
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 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.
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 Shield Security plugin for WordPress versions up to 21.0.8 contains a CSRF vulnerability in the isNonceVerifyRequired function that allows nonce verification to be bypassed via a user-supplied parameter. This enables unauthenticated attackers to inject malicious SQL queries through forged requests, potentially extracting sensitive data from the database.
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
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/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.
-
Verify Shield Security plugin is installedNavigate to WordPress admin dashboard > Plugins, or inspect the wp-content/plugins/ directory for the 'wp-simple-firewall' or 'shield-security-for-wordpress' folderAffected if The plugin folder exists in the WordPress plugins directory
-
Check installed Shield Security versionIn WordPress admin > Plugins > Shield Security, view the plugin details to see the version number; alternatively, read the main plugin PHP file (e.g., plugin.php or index.php) and look for the 'Version' header commentAffected if Version is 21.0.8 or lower (any version below 21.0.9)
-
Confirm the isNonceVerifyRequired function exists in the pluginSearch the plugin source files (in wp-content/plugins/shield-security-for-wordpress or wp-simple-firewall) for the string 'isNonceVerifyRequired' using grep or a file searchAffected if The function is found in the codebase, indicating the vulnerable code path exists
-
Verify the plugin is activeIn WordPress admin > Plugins, confirm Shield Security status shows as 'Active'Affected if The plugin is currently active and processing requests
If Shield Security plugin is installed with version 21.0.8 or below and is active, the environment is vulnerable to CSRF-based SQL injection via the isNonceVerifyRequired function nonce bypass.
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 the Shield Security plugin to version 21.0.9 or later once available. If no patched version exists, consider temporarily disabling the plugin or implementing additional web application firewall protections to mitigate the CSRF and SQL injection risk.
- 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-2026-0722 — 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-2026-0722 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