CVE-2026-2128
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 Breeze plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor in all versions up to, and including, 2.5.2 This is due to improper verification of the `wordpress_logged_in_` cookie in the `inc/cache/execute-cache.php` file when the "Cache Logged-in Users" setting is enabled. The plugin parses the username directly from the cookie value (e.g., `username|hash`) using `substr()` to retrieve the corresponding cache file but fails to verify the session's cryptographic signature or validity with WordPress core. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to supply a crafted cookie (e.g., `wordpress_logged_in_fake=admin|fake`) to trick the plugin into serving the cached HTML content generated for an administrator, leading to the disclosure of sensitive information such as private posts (including their full content), the Admin Bar, WordPress nonces, and other data visible only to logged-in administrators or other users.
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 Breeze WordPress plugin up to version 2.5.2 fails to properly validate the `wordpress_logged_in_` cookie when the 'Cache Logged-in Users' feature is enabled. The plugin directly parses the username from the cookie value (format: username|hash) using `substr()` to locate cached files but does not verify the cryptographic signature or session validity through WordPress core functions. An unauthenticated attacker can craft a malicious cookie (e.g., `wordpress_logged_in_fake=admin|fake`) to retrieve cached HTML generated for administrator sessions, exposing private posts, the Admin Bar, nonces, and other logged-in-only content.
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 Breeze plugin installation and versionIn WordPress admin, go to Plugins > Installed Plugins and locate Breeze; check the version number displayed. Alternatively, inspect the plugin file /wp-content/plugins/breeze/breeze.php and look for the 'Version:' header comment.Affected if The installed version is 2.5.2 or earlier.
-
Confirm Cache Logged-in Users feature is enabledIn WordPress admin, navigate to Breeze Settings > Cache Options, or inspect the database option breeze_cache_logged_in (typically found in wp_options table) to see if it is set to enabled or value 1.Affected if The 'Cache Logged-in Users' setting is turned ON.
-
Identify cached file directory for logged-in usersLocate the cache directory, typically /wp-content/cache/breeze/ or /wp-content/cache/breeze/inc/, and list subdirectories that may contain username-based folder structures (the plugin may create folders named after usernames extracted from cookies).Affected if A cache directory exists and contains subdirectories named after WordPress usernames or user IDs.
-
Inspect cookie handling behaviorReview the Breeze plugin file /wp-content/plugins/breeze/includes/cache.php (or similar) and search for substr() operations on wordpress_logged_in cookie that parse username without cryptographic signature validation.Affected if The code uses substr() to extract username from cookie without calling wp_validate_auth_cookie() or similar WordPress validation functions.
You are affected if Breeze version 2.5.2 or earlier is installed AND the 'Cache Logged-in Users' feature is enabled, regardless of whether the attack has been exploited.
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.
dbcve · scopedDisable the 'Cache Logged-in Users' setting in Breeze until the plugin is updated to properly validate cookie signatures using WordPress core functions like `wp_validate_auth_cookie()` before serving cached content.
Breeze version 2.5.3 or later
- 1. Log in to the WordPress admin dashboard
- 2. Navigate to Plugins > Installed Plugins
- 3. Locate the Breeze plugin and check if an update is available
- 4. If an update is available, update to the latest version (2.5.3 or later)
- 5. After updating, verify that the 'Cache Logged-in Users' setting in Breeze > General Settings > Cache is properly configured according to your security requirements
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-2128 — 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-2026-2128 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