MapPress Maps for WordPress <= 2.96.6 - Unauthenticated Insecure Direct Object Reference via REST API Endpoints
Not confirmed exploited. 1 of 8 rule sources name it. Our CRS test: not blocked.
The MapPress Maps for WordPress plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key in all versions up to, and including, 2.96.6. This is due to missing ownership verification in the REST API routes… More
The MapPress Maps for WordPress plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key in all versions up to, and including, 2.96.6. This is due to missing ownership verification in the REST API routes registered via `Mappress_Api::rest_api_init()`, where the GET `/wp-json/mapp/v1/maps/{mapid}` endpoint uses `'permission_callback' => '__return_true'` and the write endpoints (POST update, DELETE, PATCH mutate, POST clone, POST empty_trash) only check the generic `edit_posts` capability without confirming that the requester owns the targeted map — a gap that is not compensated at the model layer, as `Mappress_Map::get()`, `save()`, `delete()`, `mutate()`, and `empty_trash()` all operate on any caller-supplied map ID without an ownership check. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to read sensitive map data — including POI titles, addresses, coordinates, and body content — for any map on the site by enumerating map IDs, and for authenticated attackers with Contributor-level access and above to modify, delete, trash/restore, or clone any map regardless of its author.
Edge coverage
Claimed by vendorsAsk Vigil
AI · answers from this pageWorkers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.
Severity, decoded
CVSS 3.1Exploitable over the network, with no privileges and no user interaction, leading to low impact on integrity.
How the score is built
- Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.Network
- Attack complexityNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.Low
- Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.None
- User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.None
- ScopeThe damage stays within the vulnerable component.Unchanged
- Confidentiality impactNo data is exposed.None
- Integrity impactAn attacker can change some data, but with limited control or limited effect.Low
- Availability impactThe component keeps working normally.None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:NCISA has seen no public exploit and no attacks.
Attackers can script the attack end to end and hit many targets at once.
A successful attack gives limited control over the affected software or limited access to its data.
Public exploits
1 found- NucleiCVE-2026-8839.yamldetection template, replayed in our lab
Links are to third-party code: never run it outside an isolated lab.
Timeline
- 2026-06-06CVE publishedCVE List
- 2026-09-16F5 ships a ruleWordPress MapPress Maps Broken Access Control
- 2026-11-02Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set let it throughparanoia level 1, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
- 2026-11-02Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set let it throughparanoia level 2, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
Vendor statements
QuotedCloudflareWAF Managed Rules
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each row gives the rule ID and its default action. The feed starts in January 2025, so older rules are missing.
AWSAWS WAF Managed Rules
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)
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 rules
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.
FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patches
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)
First rule 2026-09-16, 102 days after the CVE was published.
Added: signature 200013198 "WordPress MapPress Maps Broken Access Control" (Authentication/Authorization Attacks, risk Medium), systems: WordPress. References: CVE-2026-8839.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)
This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.
OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)
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.
Social
No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.