CVE-2026-4979
CVE-2026-4979 — UsersWP <= 1.2.58 - Authenticated (Subscriber+) Server-Side Request Forgery via 'uwp_crop' Parameter
The UsersWP – Front-end login form, User Registration, User Profile & Members Directory plugin for WP plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to blind Server-Side Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.2.58. This is due to insufficient URL origin validation in the process_image_crop() method when processing avatar/banner image crop operations. The function accepts a user-controlled URL via the uwp_crop POST parameter and only validates it using esc_url() for sanitization and wp_check_filetype() for extension verification, without enforcing that the URL references a local uploads file. The URL is then passed to uwp_resizeThumbnailImage() which uses it in PHP image processing functions (getimagesize(), imagecreatefrom*()) that support URL wrappers and perform outbound HTTP requests. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers with subscriber-level access and above to…
Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, Wordfence
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.
Exploitation
Unreported
no source claims exploitation
EPSS
0%
chance of exploitation in 30 days
Affects
userswp_front_end_login_form_user_registration_user_profile_members_directory_plugin_for_wp
CVSS base
5
MEDIUM
CISA SSVC assessment
Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.
Exploitation
None
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Partial
partial · total control of the vulnerable component
Affected scope
The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.
Vendors (1)
Products (1)
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | CVSS 3.1 | MEDIUM | — | — | cvelistV5 |
Weakness & attack patterns
- CWE-918
Detection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.
- Search application, proxy, and WAF logs for requests touching /banner.
References
6 on the record
- www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/9cd2b3fd-1bca-4611-9753-ccb57b0e36a4?source=cve
reference
- plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/userswp/trunk/includes/class-forms.php#L198
reference
- plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/userswp/trunk/includes/helpers/misc.php#L136
reference
- plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/userswp/tags/1.2.55/includes/class-forms.php#L198
reference
- plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/userswp/tags/1.2.55/includes/helpers/misc.php#L136
reference
- github.com/AyeCode/userswp/commit/ca0c81b9c76a26c5ac78a8f3604cf9122a7a4aa1
reference
Elsewhere on this site
- stiofansislandevery CVE for this vendor
- CWE-918other pages naming this weakness
Not in any source we poll
Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.
- No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
- No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
- No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.