Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.20% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-4139High confidence
mCatFilter <= 0.5.2 - Cross-Site Request Forgery via compute_post() Function
chsxf · mCatFilter
4.3MediumCVSS 3.1
Scheduled
Fix not verifiedMedium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityMedium→Operational priority:Medium, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs chsxf mCatFilter and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Fix not verified01
What, why and how
The mCatFilter plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to and including 0.5.2. This is due to the complete absence of nonce verification and capability checks in the compute_post() function, which processes settings updates. The compute_post() function is called in the plugin constructor on every page load via the plugins_loaded hook, and it directly processes $_POST data to modify plugin settings via update_option() without any CSRF token validation. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify all plugin settings, including category exclusion rules, feed exclusion flags, and tag page exclusion flags, via a forged POST request, granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking a link.
What
The mCatFilter plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to and including 0.5.2. This is due to the complete absence of nonce verification and capability checks in the compute_post() function, which processes settings updates. The compute_post() function is called in the plugin constructor on every page load via the plugins_loaded hook, and it directly processes $_POST data to modify plugin settings via update_option() without any CSRF token validation. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify all plugin settings, including category exclusion rules, feed exclusion flags, and tag page exclusion flags, via a forged POST request, granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking a link.
Why
The application accepts a state-changing browser request without a reliable anti-forgery check.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
The mCatFilter plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to and including 0.5.2. This is due to the complete absence of nonce verification and capability checks in the compute_post() function, which processes settings updates. The compute_post() function is called in the plugin constructor on every page load via the plugins_loaded hook, and it directly processes $_POST data to modify plugin settings via update_option() without any CSRF token validation. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to modify all plugin settings, including category exclusion rules, feed exclusion flags, and tag page exclusion flags, via a forged POST request, granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking a link.
Why
The application accepts a state-changing browser request without a reliable anti-forgery check.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- Required interaction required
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-352 ↗
CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF). The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UIRequiredUser interaction: Another user must perform an action for exploitation to succeed.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CNoneConfidentiality impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.ILowIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- Stolen credentials, tokens and legitimate administration functions may provide continued access without deploying a large custom toolset.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Fix not verified
- Affected
- mCatFilter: ≤ 0.5.2
- Fixed
- No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- Action
- No verified patch reference is present in the current structured sources. Check the vendor advisory before making a change.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 22 Apr 2026 · Last source change 22 Apr 2026, 15:31 UTC · CWE-352 · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-24680
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD not scheduled
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.