Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:NCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-0807 is a high-severity SSRF (CWE-918) vulnerability in Wordpress (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 7.2 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 26th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2026-0807 is a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability, classified under CWE-918, affecting the Frontis Blocks plugin for WordPress in all versions up to and including 1.1.6. The issue stems from insufficient restrictions on the 'url' parameter within the 'template_proxy' function, allowing requests to arbitrary locations originating from the web server via the '/template-proxy/' and '/proxy-image/' endpoints. It carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.2 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N), highlighting its high severity due to network accessibility, low complexity, and changed scope with limited confidentiality and integrity impacts.
Unauthenticated attackers can exploit this vulnerability remotely without privileges or user interaction by sending crafted requests to the affected endpoints. This enables them to force the WordPress server to initiate connections to arbitrary domains or internal resources, potentially bypassing firewalls, accessing metadata services, or probing internal networks from the trusted server context.
Advisories reference code locations in the plugin's Admin.php file at line 910 across version tags and trunk, along with WordPress plugin trac changeset 3444616, which likely addresses the issue post-1.1.6. Additional details are available via Wordfence threat intelligence.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-4577
Vulnerability Data
The Frontis Blocks plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.1.6. This is due to insufficient restriction on the 'url' parameter in the 'template_proxy' function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated…
more
attackers to make web requests to arbitrary locations originating from the web application via the '/template-proxy/' and '/proxy-image/' endpoint.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.3.6V1.5.3V5.3.2V10.4.7
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Information flow enforcement can restrict which destinations the server is allowed to contact on behalf of users.
Input validation directly stops untrusted URLs from being accepted and fetched without destination checks.
Boundary protection limits the network reach of server-initiated requests even if SSRF occurs.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure development practices directly include input validation and destination allow-listing that prevent SSRF.
Runtime monitoring of web applications and services can detect anomalous outbound requests indicative of SSRF.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record SSRF flaws in web applications.
Network segmentation and egress controls can limit the damage from successful SSRF requests.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Operational threat data describing SSRF campaigns can be used to tighten outbound-request allow-lists and detection rules before attackers exploit them.