WordPressCMS
CVE-2026-60137
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 · uneditedWordPress 6.8.x before 6.8.6, 6.9.x before 6.9.5, and 7.0.x before 7.0.2 does not properly sanitise the author__not_in parameter of WP_Query, which could allow SQL Injection when a plugin or theme passes untrusted input to the parameter.
In the news
Third-party coverage- U.S. CISA adds DD-WRT, Langflow and WordPress flaws to its Known ...
- Two new high severity WordPress vulnerabilities, patch immediately!
- WP2Shell WordPress Vulnerabilities Exploited in the Wild - SecurityWeek
- New wp2shell WordPress Core Flaw Lets Unauthenticated Attackers Run ...
- Latest CVE-2026-60137 news - Bleeping Computer
Surfaced from public web coverage — external links open in a new tab.
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 confidenceWordPress WP_Query fails to properly sanitize the author__not_in parameter, allowing SQL Injection when plugins or themes pass untrusted user input to this parameter. This affects multiple WordPress versions across the 6.8, 6.9, and 7.0 branches.
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
WordPressCMS
>= 6.8, < 6.8.6>= 6.9, < 6.9.5>= 7.0, < 7.0.2CVSS 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
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/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 installed WordPress versionAccess your site via FTP or file manager and open the version.php file in wp-includes directory, or check the version shown in the WordPress admin dashboard under 'At a Glance' or in the source code of any WordPress page (meta generator tag)Affected if The version is 6.8.0-6.8.5, 6.9.0-6.9.4, or 7.0.0-7.0.1 (falls within any of the affected ranges)
-
Confirm WordPress core version is not patchedCompare your installed version number against the fixed versions: 6.8.6, 6.9.5, or 7.0.2. If your version is lower than any of these, the core is vulnerableAffected if Installed version is less than 6.8.6, 6.9.5, or 7.0.2
-
Audit custom code for author__not_in usageSearch your wp-content directory (themes and plugins folders) for 'author__not_in' string in PHP files, using grep or a code editor search functionAffected if Any plugin or theme code contains author__not_in in WP_Query arguments
-
Check if author__not_in receives user inputExamine each found usage of author__not_in and trace whether the value passed to it originates from $_GET, $_POST, $_REQUEST, or other user-controllable sources without sanitization via absint() or intval()Affected if The author__not_in parameter is populated directly from user input without proper integer type casting or sanitization
You are affected if your WordPress version is below the fixed releases AND any plugin or theme passes unsanitized user input to the author__not_in parameter in WP_Query.
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 · scoped6.8.66.9.57.0.2
Update WordPress to version 6.8.6, 6.9.5, or 7.0.2 or later to obtain the patched version, and audit any custom plugins or themes that pass user-supplied input to WP_Query parameters.
WordPress 6.8.6, 6.9.5, or 7.0.2 depending on your current branch
- 1. Backup your WordPress database and files before making any changes
- 2. Update all plugins and themes to their latest versions to ensure compatibility
- 3. Download WordPress 6.8.6 (if running 6.8.x), 6.9.5 (if running 6.9.x), or 7.0.2 (if running 7.0.x) from wordpress.org/download
- 4. Update WordPress via Dashboard > Updates, or manually replace core files excluding wp-content directory
- 5. Verify the update was successful by checking the WordPress version in Dashboard > At a Glance
- 6. Test critical functionality on your site to ensure the update did not break existing features
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in WordPress
Exploited in the wild — priority engagement
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,096.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-60137 — 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 sourcesThis CVE reveals a critical gap between abstract severity metrics and operational reality. The core tension: CVSS 5.9 (Medium) contradicts CISA KEV inclusion and an EPSS score of 0.79029 — the latter placing this in the 99th percentile for exploitation probability. The discussion converges on the view that CVSS base scores fail to capture post-deployment dynamics, particularly for vulnerabilities already under active exploitation. The most analytically valuable insight concerns the vulnerability's indirect architecture. This is not a direct injection in WordPress core; it requires a plugin or theme to pass untrusted input into the `author__not_in` parameter of WP_Query. This creates a two-stage remediation problem: patching WordPress core removes the vulnerable parameter, but exploitation persists if any plugin or theme continues coupling untrusted input to it. The patch deployment paradox is acute — high urgency signals (KEV + EPSS) demand immediate action, but the actual remediation requires audit-and-patch cycles that cannot be rushed without breaking functionality. The historical pattern analysis (historyrhyme) provides crucial context: SQL injection in WP_Query parameters has appeared at least four times in the past decade, following the same conditional chain pattern. This suggests the problem is structural to WordPress's design philosophy — core leaves parameters with incomplete input handling and expects plugins/themes to compensate, despite inconsistent security knowledge across the ecosystem. Key points of tension: faultmemory pushes back on treating EPSS as directly applicable to organizational prioritization, arguing it measures aggregate probability across the WordPress ecosystem rather than conditional probability given specific asset inventory. fossil raises the uncomfortable question of whether the exploitation window already passed before patch release — making core patching partly theater while the actual plugin chains may persist. For defenders, the implications are clear: treat this as a two-track remediation requiring both core update AND code-pattern audit; assume other WP_Query parameters may share the same incomplete handling; and recognize that the detection problem is not "do I have this CVE" but "does any code on this site couple untrusted input to this parameter" — a question most operators cannot answer at scale.
Practitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-60137 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