CVE-2026-56026
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 · uneditedSubscriber Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) in utm.codes <= 1.9.0 versions.
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 confidenceA Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in utm.codes plugin versions 1.9.0 and below, allowing authenticated users with Subscriber privileges to make the server perform arbitrary HTTP requests to internal or external resources, potentially exposing internal services or bypassing network restrictions.
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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Verify utm.codes plugin is installedIn WordPress admin, go to Plugins > Installed Plugins and look for 'utm.codes' in the list. Note the version number displayed alongside the plugin name.Affected if The plugin is listed and shows version 1.9.0 or lower
-
Confirm plugin version numberCheck the plugin version in the plugin header or in the plugin's main PHP file (typically in the plugin directory under the filename matching the plugin name, or in readme.txt). Compare the version against 1.9.0.Affected if The installed version is 1.9.0 or any version below 1.9.0 (e.g., 1.8.x, 1.7.x, etc.)
-
Check for Subscriber-level user accountsIn WordPress admin, go to Users and review the list. Look for any users with the 'Subscriber' role. Note the count and usernames of Subscriber accounts.Affected if There is at least one user account with Subscriber role, as this role is sufficient to trigger the vulnerability
-
Identify if plugin endpoints are exposedCheck if the plugin's AJAX endpoints or admin-ajax.php endpoints related to utm.codes are accessible. Look for any WordPress REST API routes or admin-ajax actions containing 'utm' or 'utm_codes' in the URL or request parameters.Affected if The plugin functionality is accessible to authenticated users including Subscribers, and the endpoint handles URL parameters without proper validation
You are affected if the utm.codes plugin is installed at version 1.9.0 or below AND at least one Subscriber-level user account exists in your WordPress installation, as this combination allows the SSRF flaw to be 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.
From vendor dataUpdate utm.codes to the latest patched version. If immediate update is not possible, restrict Subscriber-level user permissions or disable the plugin until a patch is available.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-56026 — 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-2026-56026 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