CVE-2026-22358
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 · uneditedServer-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in SmartDataSoft Electrician - Electrical Service WordPress electrician allows Server Side Request Forgery.This issue affects Electrician - Electrical Service WordPress: from n/a through <= 5.6.
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 · moderate confidenceServer-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in the SmartDataSoft 'Electrician - Electrical Service' WordPress plugin (versions <= 5.6). The vulnerability allows an attacker to cause the server to make requests to arbitrary destinations, potentially accessing internal services, cloud metadata endpoints, or internal infrastructure.
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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/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 the installed plugin versionNavigate to WordPress Admin > Plugins > Installed Plugins > Electrician - Electrical Service. Alternatively, inspect the main plugin file (usually electricians.php or similar in wp-content/plugins/electrician/) for the 'Version' header comment, or run: grep -i 'Version:' wp-content/plugins/electrician/*.phpAffected if The displayed version number is 5.6 or lower
-
Verify the plugin is activeIn WordPress Admin > Plugins, confirm that 'Electrician - Electrical Service' shows as 'Active' under the plugin statusAffected if The plugin is active and the version is 5.6 or lower
-
Identify URL-handling functionalityReview the plugin source files in wp-content/plugins/electrician/ for functions that accept URL parameters (look for calls to wp_remote_get, wp_remote_post, file_get_contents with URL, or cURL functions). Common parameter names include 'url', 'link', 'redirect', 'src', or 'href'Affected if The plugin contains code that processes user-supplied URLs in server-side requests and the plugin version is 5.6 or lower
-
Check for unauthenticated accessDetermine if the vulnerable URL-handling code is accessible without authentication by reviewing the plugin's capability checks and Ajax handlers. Test by sending a request to common plugin endpoints without authentication headersAffected if The SSRF-vulnerable endpoint is accessible to unauthenticated users and the plugin version is 5.6 or lower
You are affected if the Electrician plugin version is 5.6 or lower AND the plugin is active AND it contains URL-handling functionality accessible in your environment.
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 dataImplement strict input validation and allowlisting for any URL parameters used in server-side requests. Restrict the allowed URL schemes and destinations to trusted sources only. Ensure all user-supplied URLs are validated against a predefined allowlist of permitted hosts and protocols.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-22358 — 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-2026-22358 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