WpdiscuzWordPress extension · Gvectors
CVE-2026-22199
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 · uneditedVoltronic Power SNMP Web Pro version 1.1 contains a pre-authentication path traversal vulnerability in the upload.cgi endpoint that allows unauthenticated attackers to read arbitrary files on the device filesystem by supplying directory traversal sequences in the params parameter. Attackers can exploit this vulnerability to disclose sensitive files such as password hashes, which can be cracked offline to obtain root-level access and enable full system compromise.
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 confidenceVoltronic Power SNMP Web Pro version 1.1 has a pre-authentication path traversal vulnerability in the upload.cgi endpoint. Attackers can supply directory traversal sequences in the params parameter to read arbitrary files on the device filesystem, potentially exposing sensitive files like password hashes that can be cracked for root access.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
WpdiscuzWordPress extension
< 7.6.47CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/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.
-
Check Wpdiscuz plugin versionNavigate to WordPress admin dashboard > Plugins > Wpdiscuz, or inspect the plugin file /wp-content/plugins/wpdiscuz/wpdiscuz.php and look for the 'Version' header commentAffected if The installed version is less than 7.6.47 (e.g., 7.6.0, 7.5.x, etc.)
-
Verify upload functionality is accessibleCheck if the wpdiscuz upload functionality is enabled in the plugin settings under Comments > Settings > General > Enable WpdiscuzAffected if The upload feature is enabled and the web server is publicly accessible
-
Inspect HTTP requests to upload endpointUse browser developer tools or a proxy to examine network requests when posting a comment with file attachment, looking for the upload endpoint pathAffected if Requests are sent to an endpoint without authentication required
You are affected if the Wpdiscuz plugin version installed is below 7.6.47 and the upload functionality is accessible to unauthenticated users.
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 data7.6.47
Implement strict input validation on the params parameter to reject directory traversal sequences (../). If no vendor patch is available, restrict network access to the web interface via firewall or disable the service if not required.
Fix this in Wpdiscuz
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-22199 — 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-2026-22199 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