CVE-2026-6228
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-2026-6228 is a high-severity Improper Privilege Management (CWE-269) vulnerability in Wordpress (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, ranked in the top 45% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-30513
Vulnerability Data
The Frontend Admin by DynamiApps plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Privilege Escalation in versions up to and including 3.28.36. This is due to insufficient authorization checks in the role field update mechanism combined with overly permissive capabilities for the…
more
admin_form post type. The admin_form custom post type uses 'capability_type' => 'page', which grants editors the ability to create and edit forms. When an editor creates an edit_user form, they can manipulate the form configuration to include 'administrator' in the role_options array by directly submitting POST data to wp-admin/post.php, bypassing the UI restrictions in feadmin_get_user_roles(). When the form is subsequently submitted, the pre_update_value() function in class-role.php only validates that the submitted role exists in the form's role_options array (lines 107-110), but fails to verify that the current user has permission to assign that specific role. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to first register as editors (via a public new_user form), then create an edit_user form with administrator in the allowed roles, and finally use that form to escalate their own privileges to administrator.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
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 (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.
A.5.15 directly mandates determining access requirements, defining/enforcing topic-specific access control policy, assigning rights/restrictions by entity/role, consistency with classification, need-to-know, privileged access restrictions, segregation, formal authorization, and dynamic rules — which stops most improper privilege management from being exploitable; bounded remainder is flawed implementation of those rules (e.g. incorrect mapping or enforcement bugs).
A.5.18 directly governs the provisioning, review, modification and timely revocation of access rights (including for role changes, termination and privilege levels), which stops most improper privilege spheres from being exploitable even if the assignment flaw exists; the bounded remainder is flaws in the underlying enforcement mechanism itself (e.g. AC-3/A.8.3)
A.8.2 directly controls the identification, allocation, review, expiry, temporary use, and separation of privileged rights per policy, which prevents most improper privilege management (CWE-269) by design; the bounded remainder is flawed tracking/checking logic inside the product's own enforcement code (the AC-3 slice of 269).
A.8.3 directly restricts access per policies (config mechanisms, per-user/group rights, isolation, dynamic techniques, auth/credential enforcement), which stops exploitation of most improper privilege management cases even if the assignment/tracking flaw remains; named remainder exists for non-access-control privilege errors (e.g. pure assignment bugs outside enforcement).
Hardening callouts derived
DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.