Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). EPSS, Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST), epss.first.org. Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2026-9851 is a high-severity Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key (CWE-639) vulnerability in Wordpress (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 7.2 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Databases (T1213.006); ranked at the 30th 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-24 (Access Control Decisions) and AC-3 (Access Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-34961
Vulnerability Data
The Booking Package plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Privilege Escalation via Account Takeover in versions up to, and including, 1.7.16. This is due to a missing capability check on the 'updateUser' branch of the package_app_action AJAX endpoint, where the…
more
handler only validates a nonce and the dispatcher invokes Schedule::updateUser() with the $administrator argument hard-coded to 1, bypassing the only owner-restriction check inside that function and allowing the target user to be determined solely by attacker-supplied input passed directly to wp_update_user(). This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Editor-level access and above, to change the email address and password of any account, including Administrator accounts, resulting in a full site takeover.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
MITRE ATT&CK v20.0
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5)
Our mappings, made for this CVE.
Enforcing approved authorizations on every access request structurally stops a user-controlled key from reaching another user's data.
Requiring explicit access-control decisions on each request blocks unauthorized key-driven access.
Least-privilege restrictions limit the scope of data reachable even if a key check is bypassed.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0)
Our mappings, derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our CWE→CSF cross-walk — links open the control.
Enforcing authorization policy and least privilege directly blocks user-controlled key tampering that bypasses access checks.
Logical access controls prevent unauthorized data access that results from missing authorization checks on object references.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A)
Our mappings, derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our CWE→ISO cross-walk — links open the control.
A.8.3 mandates that access to information be restricted based on user identity and permissions, directly addressing the missing authorization check that defines CWE-639; when applied, it removes the vulnerability by requiring that such checks be implemented.
Security testing can detect missing authorization checks but does not prevent the weakness in production.
Managing access rights includes ensuring users can only access their own records and not bypass authorization by altering identifiers.
Secure coding practices reduce the likelihood of missing authorization checks but do not guarantee their presence at runtime.