CVE-2026-6741
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-2026-6741 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 22th 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-2026-6741 is a privilege escalation vulnerability in the LatePoint – Calendar Booking Plugin for Appointments and Events for WordPress, affecting versions up to and including 5.4.1. The flaw arises from a missing authorization check in the execute() method of the connect-customer-to-wp-user ability, which solely requires the customer__edit capability—granted by default to the latepoint_agent role—without confirming whether the target WordPress user ID corresponds to a privileged account.
Authenticated attackers with the latepoint_agent role can exploit this vulnerability over the network to link any LatePoint customer record to an administrator's WordPress account. They can then leverage the standard customer password-reset flow to reset the administrator's password, resulting in full site takeover. The vulnerability 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).
References to the vulnerable code include the connect-customer-to-wp-user.php file at https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/latepoint/tags/5.4.1/lib/abilities/customers/connect-customer-to-wp-user.php, roles_helper.php at https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/latepoint/tags/5.4.1/lib/helpers/roles_helper.php, and customer_model.php at https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/latepoint/tags/5.4.1/lib/models/customer_model.php. A patch is indicated in changeset 3514330 at https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3514330/latepoint, with the plugin page at https://wordpress.org/plugins/latepoint/.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-25910
Vulnerability Data
The LatePoint – Calendar Booking Plugin for Appointments and Events plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Privilege Escalation in versions up to and including 5.4.1. This is due to a missing authorization check in the execute() method of the connect-customer-to-wp-user…
more
ability, which only requires the customer__edit capability granted to the latepoint_agent role by default, without verifying whether the target WordPress user ID belongs to a privileged account. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers with the latepoint_agent role to link any LatePoint customer record to an administrator's WordPress account and subsequently reset the administrator's password via the normal customer password-reset flow, resulting in full site takeover.
- 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