Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.49% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-75018High confidence
Custom Contact Forms <= 7.16 - Missing Authorization to Authenticated (Contributor+) Arbitrary Post Deletion and Post Meta Modification via Nested 'fields[].ID' / 'choices[].ID' Parameters
outlawgt · Custom Contact Forms
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 outlawgt Custom Contact Forms 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 Custom Contact Forms plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass in all versions up to, and including, 7.16. This is due to the plugin not properly verifying that a user is authorized to perform an action. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with contributor-level access and above, to permanently force-delete arbitrary posts of any post type (including pages, administrator-authored posts, and WooCommerce products) and write arbitrary ccf_field_* post meta onto any post regardless of ownership or post type. The top-level form ID is checked via edit_post/publish_posts, but the nested fields[].ID and choices[].ID paths processed by _create_and_map_fields() and _create_and_map_choices() carry no equivalent capability or post-type guard, leaving those sinks fully exposed while delete_item() and delete_submission() contain explicit post-type restriction fixes demonstrating the developer's awareness of scoping requirements.
What
The Custom Contact Forms plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass in all versions up to, and including, 7.16. This is due to the plugin not properly verifying that a user is authorized to perform an action. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with contributor-level access and above, to permanently force-delete arbitrary posts of any post type (including pages, administrator-authored posts, and WooCommerce products) and write arbitrary ccf_field_* post meta onto any post regardless of ownership or post type. The top-level form ID is checked via edit_post/publish_posts, but the nested fields[].ID and choices[].ID paths processed by _create_and_map_fields() and _create_and_map_choices() carry no equivalent capability or post-type guard, leaving those sinks fully exposed while delete_item() and delete_submission() contain explicit post-type restriction fixes demonstrating the developer's awareness of scoping requirements.
Why
The application reaches a protected operation without first confirming that the requester is authorised.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
The Custom Contact Forms plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass in all versions up to, and including, 7.16. This is due to the plugin not properly verifying that a user is authorized to perform an action. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with contributor-level access and above, to permanently force-delete arbitrary posts of any post type (including pages, administrator-authored posts, and WooCommerce products) and write arbitrary ccf_field_* post meta onto any post regardless of ownership or post type. The top-level form ID is checked via edit_post/publish_posts, but the nested fields[].ID and choices[].ID paths processed by _create_and_map_fields() and _create_and_map_choices() carry no equivalent capability or post-type guard, leaving those sinks fully exposed while delete_item() and delete_submission() contain explicit post-type restriction fixes demonstrating the developer's awareness of scoping requirements.
Why
The application reaches a protected operation without first confirming that the requester is authorised.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. 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 → Missing Authorization → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- Low: a basic authenticated account is required
- User interaction
- None
- 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-862 ↗
CWE-862: Missing Authorization. The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
- 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:L/UI:N/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.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.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
- No specific living-off-the-land technique is confirmed in the structured sources. Monitor normal administration tools for activity inconsistent with the affected service's baseline.
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
- Custom Contact Forms: ≤ 7.16
- 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 5 Sept 2026 · Last source change 7 Sept 2026, 11:17 UTC · CWE-862 · Missing Authorization
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-09-06
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-71933
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
- ENISA EUVD mappingEUVD-2026-71933 was added to the official ENISA EUVD mapping for this CVE.ENISA EUVD ↗
- Before
- not recorded
- After
- {"euvdId":"EUVD-2026-71933"}
- Catalogue recordCVE added to the BlackTree catalogue.CNA ↗
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.