CVE-2026-12426
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 Members – Membership & User Role Editor Plugin plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Sensitive Information Exposure in all versions up to, and including, 3.2.22 via the members_filter_protected_posts_for_rest. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to extract determine the existence and exact count of access-restricted posts, and use per-page pagination as a boolean oracle to infer keywords and content contained within those hidden restricted posts.
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 Members WordPress plugin has a sensitive information exposure vulnerability via the members_filter_protected_posts_for_rest function. Unauthenticated attackers can determine the existence and exact count of access-restricted posts, and use pagination as a boolean oracle to infer keywords and content within those protected posts through the REST API.
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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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 Members plugin versionIn WordPress admin, go to Plugins > Installed Plugins > Members, or check the version in the plugin's main PHP file (typically members-members.php in wp-content/plugins/members/). Compare the version number to the affected range (versions 3.2.22 and below).Affected if The installed version is 3.2.22 or lower, or if the version cannot be determined and the plugin is active.
-
Confirm REST API is accessible to unauthenticated usersSend a GET request to the WordPress REST API endpoint (e.g., /wp-json/wp/v2/posts) without providing authentication headers. Verify the request returns a 200 OK response with post data.Affected if The REST API returns post data without requiring authentication (no 401 or 403 error).
-
Test for protected post enumeration via REST APIQuery the /wp-json/wp/v2/posts endpoint with parameters like 'per_page=1' and check if response headers or body reveal information about access-restricted (private/draft/password-protected) posts, or if pagination behavior differs when accessing protected content.Affected if The API response reveals exact counts of posts beyond what unauthenticated users should see, or pagination responses differ between public and protected content.
You are affected if the Members plugin version is 3.2.22 or lower AND the WordPress REST API is accessible to unauthenticated users, allowing them to enumerate protected post counts and infer content through pagination.
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 Members plugin to a version beyond 3.2.22. Until then, consider restricting REST API access for unauthenticated users or implementing additional access controls on protected content endpoints.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-12426 — 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-2026-12426 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