Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/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-2026-5737 is a medium-severity SSRF (CWE-918) vulnerability in Wordpress (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 6.5 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked at the 37th 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.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-32702
Vulnerability Data
The Independent Analytics plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Server-Side Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 2.14.9. This is due to a public tracking route at /wp-json/iawp/search that accepts attacker-controlled referrer_url values when the signature matches, combined…
more
with a scheduled favicon fetcher that performs unrestricted cURL requests to stored domains. The signature validation is insufficient because the signature is embedded in publicly-accessible JavaScript and the salt is static per site, allowing attackers to extract valid signatures. The favicon downloader uses raw cURL functions without any SSRF protection mechanisms (no localhost blocking, no private network filtering, and does not use WordPress's wp_safe_remote_* functions). This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject malicious referrer domains into the database and trigger server-side requests to arbitrary hosts including internal services.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
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.