dbcve.org
Path TraversalWeakness · CWE-22

CVE-2026-32496

MEDIUM · 6.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-03-25
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
74/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable Zero-click

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 · unedited
Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') vulnerability in NYSL Spam Protect for Contact Form 7 wp-contact-form-7-spam-blocker allows Path Traversal.This issue affects Spam Protect for Contact Form 7: from n/a through <= 1.2.9.

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 confidence

A path traversal vulnerability in the NYSL Spam Protect for Contact Form 7 WordPress plugin allows attackers to access files outside the restricted web root directory through manipulation of file path inputs using directory traversal sequences (e.g., ../../../).

MitigationUpdate to a patched version of the plugin once available. If no patch exists, disable the plugin or implement input validation/regex filtering to reject traversal sequences in file path parameters.

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
High
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Confirm the NYSL Spam Protect for Contact Form 7 plugin is installed
    Navigate to WordPress admin > Plugins and look for 'NYSL Spam Protect for Contact Form 7' in the installed plugins list, or inspect the plugins directory for the plugin folder
    Affected if The plugin appears in the installed plugins list
  2. Identify the installed plugin version
    In WordPress admin > Plugins > Installed Plugins, find NYSL Spam Protect for Contact Form 7 and read the version number from the plugin description row; alternatively, check the plugin main PHP file for the 'Version' header in the plugin comment block
    Affected if The displayed version matches or precedes any version noted as vulnerable in official security advisories
  3. Determine if the plugin file protection feature is active
    Check the plugin settings page in WordPress admin for any file protection, path access, or file viewing configuration options; look for settings related to accessing files or paths
    Affected if The plugin has an enabled feature that accepts file path parameters and serves files based on user input
  4. Inspect for directory traversal exposure in plugin functionality
    Review plugin source code in the plugin directory for functions that handle file path inputs (look for functions using file_get_contents, fopen, include, require, or similar) without proper path sanitization; grep for patterns like '../' or '..\' in the code
    Affected if The code contains file handling functions that process user-supplied path parameters without validating or restricting paths to an allowed directory
  5. Test for traversal vulnerability via the plugin endpoints
    If the plugin exposes any HTTP parameters for file paths (check for forms, AJAX handlers, or dedicated endpoints), attempt a safe test by submitting a path with '../../' sequences to see if the response reveals files outside the web root; use a read-only test file placed outside the web root as a control
    Affected if The plugin returns content from files outside the expected directory when traversal sequences are provided

You are affected if the NYSL Spam Protect for Contact Form 7 plugin is installed and its file path handling feature accepts user input without proper directory traversal validation.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Update to a patched version of the plugin once available. If no patch exists, disable the plugin or implement input validation/regex filtering to reject traversal sequences in file path parameters.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
14.0 hours of engineering $2,490
Get help mitigating

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-32496 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-32496 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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