CVE-2026-4314
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-4314 is a high-severity Improper Privilege Management (CWE-269) vulnerability in Wordpress (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism (T1548); ranked at the 21th 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-2 (Account Management) and AC-24 (Access Control Decisions) — 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-2026-4314 is a privilege escalation vulnerability affecting all versions up to and including 3.2.4 of the 'The Ultimate WordPress Toolkit – WP Extended' plugin for WordPress. The flaw originates in the Menu Editor module's `isDashboardOrProfileRequest()` method, which performs an insecure `strpos()` check against `$_SERVER['REQUEST_URI']` to identify dashboard or profile page requests. This insecure check enables the `grantVirtualCaps()` method—hooked into the `user_has_cap` filter—to improperly grant elevated capabilities, including `manage_options`, when the condition evaluates to true.
Authenticated attackers with Subscriber-level access or higher can exploit the vulnerability by appending a crafted query parameter to any admin URL. Successful exploitation grants administrative capabilities, allowing attackers to update arbitrary WordPress options and create new Administrator accounts. The issue carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H) and maps to CWE-269 (Improper Privilege Management).
Advisories reference vulnerable code at lines 135 and 207 in `modules/menu-editor/Bootstrap.php` of tag 3.2.4. A patch addressing the issue appears in the plugin's trunk via the referenced changeset. Further details, including threat intelligence, are available on the Wordfence vulnerability page.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-14275
Vulnerability Data
The 'The Ultimate WordPress Toolkit – WP Extended' plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Privilege Escalation in all versions up to, and including, 3.2.4. This is due to the `isDashboardOrProfileRequest()` method in the Menu Editor module using an insecure `strpos()`…
more
check against `$_SERVER['REQUEST_URI']` to determine if a request targets the dashboard or profile page. The `grantVirtualCaps()` method, which is hooked into the `user_has_cap` filter, grants elevated capabilities including `manage_options` when this check returns true. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to gain administrative capabilities by appending a crafted query parameter to any admin URL, allowing them to update arbitrary WordPress options and ultimately create new Administrator accounts.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 3 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Account management directly governs assignment and tracking of privileges so proper implementation stops the weakness from being introduced.
Requiring explicit access-control decisions ensures privileges are evaluated rather than assumed or omitted.
Access enforcement applies the correct privilege checks at every request, structurally preventing unintended spheres of control.
Separation of duties constrains how privileges may be assigned, reducing the chance of overly broad actor control.
Least privilege is the direct countermeasure to improper privilege management; implementing it eliminates the root cause.
Binding security attributes to subjects/objects supplies the mechanism needed to track and enforce privileges correctly.
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.
PR.AA-05 enforces least privilege/SoD and periodic reviews that directly remove most privilege-assignment defects, yet CWE-269 also covers escalation paths and role design outside a single access-management control.
PR.AA-01 supplies credential/identity lifecycle support that can reduce some privilege-assignment errors but does not itself assign, modify, or check privileges, leaving most of CWE-269's risk unaddressed.
Config baselines and default reviews can enforce some privilege-related settings (one facet) but do not address code-level assignment/tracking logic that defines CWE-269.
PR.PS-05 can partially limit exploitability of some privilege issues via execution restrictions, but does not address the core design/implementation flaws of CWE-269 at all.
PR.DS-10 protects data-in-use without touching privilege assignment/tracking, so it neither prevents CWE-269 nor removes more than one narrow facet of its risk.
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.
Explicit restrictions on privileged access and segregation of duties limit the scope of privileges that can be assigned, reducing the chance that excessive or unnecessary privileges are granted to entities.
Requiring owner approval, segregation of duties, and periodic reviews prevents the assignment of excessive or unnecessary privileges to users or processes.
Defining and communicating authorization levels for each role limits the assignment of excessive or unnecessary privileges.
Separating duties such as developing software from administering production systems prevents any one person from accumulating excessive privileges that would constitute improper privilege management.
Logging every use of privileges and protecting those records makes it harder for an attacker who has obtained elevated rights to operate without leaving evidence.
Defining and enforcing documented authorization levels for each utility program prevents the assignment of excessive privileges that would let an attacker abuse those utilities beyond their intended scope.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (higher-evidence rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
Windows 10 (1 rule)
- V-220712 Only accounts responsible for the administration of a system must have Administrator rights on the system. prevents CWE-269
Windows Server 2016 (1 rule)
- V-225007 Only administrators responsible for the member server or standalone or nondomain-joined system must have Administrator rights on the system. prevents CWE-269
Windows Server 2019 (1 rule)
- V-205746 Windows Server 2019 must only allow Administrators responsible for the member server or standalone or nondomain-joined system to have Administrator rights on the system. prevents CWE-269