Vigilbase CVEConnect your agent

WooCommerce Payments WordPress Plugin

Not in CISA KEVMetasploit moduleCVE-2023-28121CWE-287

Not confirmed exploited. 1 of 8 rule sources name it. Our CRS test: not blocked.

Edge rules
1/8
Our test
Not blocked
CVSS
—
EPSS
87.4% Top 0.2%
Posts, 14d
02026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts
Published
2023-04-12
An issue in WooCommerce Payments plugin for WordPress (versions 5.6.1 and lower) allows an unauthenticated attacker to send requests on behalf of an elevated user, like administrator. This allows a remote, unauthenticated attacker to gain… More

An issue in WooCommerce Payments plugin for WordPress (versions 5.6.1 and lower) allows an unauthenticated attacker to send requests on behalf of an elevated user, like administrator. This allows a remote, unauthenticated attacker to gain admin access on a site that has the affected version of the plugin activated.

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page
Ask about CVE-2023-28121: who's covered, what to patch first, how vendors compare. I cite sources and won't help with attacks.

Workers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.

Public exploits

2 found
1 Metasploit0 Exploit-DB1 Scanner template0 GitHub PoCs

Links are to third-party code: never run it outside an isolated lab.

Timeline

  1. 2023-03-22
    Metasploit module published
    Wordpress Plugin WooCommerce Payments Unauthenticated Admin Creation
  2. 2023-04-12
    CVE published
    CVE List
  3. 2023-08-08
    F5 ships a rule
    WordPress WooCommerce Unauthorized Admin Access
  4. 2026-11-02
    Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set let it through
    paranoia level 1, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
  5. 2026-11-02
    Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set let it through
    paranoia level 2, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings

Social

2026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts

No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.

Vendor statements

Quoted
CloudflareWAF Managed RulesBefore feed history

The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.

AWSAWS WAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.

Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.

Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rulesBefore feed history

The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.

FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patchesBefore feed history

The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.

F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)1 quoteRule published

First rule 2023-08-08, 118 days after the CVE was published.

2023-08-08New rule200014029Source
Added: signature 200014029 "WordPress WooCommerce Unauthorized Admin Access" (Abuse of Functionality, risk High), systems: PHP, WordPress. References: CVE-2023-28121.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)No public source

This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.

OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.