CVE-2026-1919
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 Booking Calendar for Appointments and Service Businesses – Booktics plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to unauthorized access of data due to a missing capability check on multiple REST API endpoints in all versions up to, and including, 1.0.16. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to query sensitive data.
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 Booktics WordPress plugin has multiple REST API endpoints that lack proper capability checks, allowing unauthenticated attackers to query sensitive booking data including customer information, appointment details, and service records.
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.
-
Confirm Booktics plugin is installedAccess WordPress admin panel, navigate to Plugins > Installed Plugins, and search for 'Booktics' in the list of active pluginsAffected if Booktics plugin appears in the installed plugins list
-
Identify installed Booktics versionIn WordPress admin, go to Plugins > Installed Plugins, locate Booktics, and note the version number displayed below the plugin nameAffected if Version is lower than 1.0.17 or version cannot be determined (indicating potentially unpatched)
-
Verify WordPress REST API is accessibleSend a GET request to your site's /wp-json/ endpoint (e.g., https://yoursite.com/wp-json/) using curl or a browserAffected if REST API returns a 200 OK response, indicating the API is exposed
-
Test Booktics REST API endpoint exposureSend an unauthenticated GET request to common Booktics REST endpoints such as /wp-json/booktics/v1/bookings or /wp-json/booktics/v1/customersAffected if The endpoint returns HTTP 200 with booking data, customer information, or service records without requiring authentication
If Booktics plugin is installed with a version below 1.0.17 and the REST API is accessible, the site is likely affected by unauthenticated sensitive data exposure.
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 Booktics plugin to version 1.0.17 or later which implements proper capability checks on all REST API endpoints. Until then, consider restricting REST API access or deploying a web application firewall.
- 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-2026-1919 — 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-2026-1919 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