FKIE_CVE-2021-42359

Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2021-11-05 21:15 - Updated: 2026-06-17 04:09
Severity
7.5 (High) - CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
9.1 (Critical) - CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
Summary
WP DSGVO Tools (GDPR) <= 3.1.23 had an AJAX action, ‘admin-dismiss-unsubscribe‘, which lacked a capability check and a nonce check and was available to unauthenticated users, and did not check the post type when deleting unsubscription requests. As such, it was possible for an attacker to permanently delete an arbitrary post or page on the site by sending an AJAX request with the “action” parameter set to “admin-dismiss-unsubscribe” and the “id” parameter set to the post to be deleted. Sending such a request would move the post to the trash, and repeating the request would permanently delete the post in question.
References
security@wordfence.comhttps://www.wordfence.com/blog/2021/11/vulnerability-in-wp-dsgvo-tools-gdpr-plugin-allows-unauthenticated-page-deletion/Exploit, Third Party Advisory
af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2021/11/vulnerability-in-wp-dsgvo-tools-gdpr-plugin-allows-unauthenticated-page-deletion/Exploit, Third Party Advisory
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version
legalweb wp_dsgvo_tools *
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "affectedData": [
        {
          "platforms": [
            "WordPress"
          ],
          "product": "WP DSGVO Tools (GDPR)",
          "vendor": "legalweb",
          "versions": [
            {
              "lessThanOrEqual": "3.1.23",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "3.1.23",
              "versionType": "custom"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "source": "security@wordfence.com"
    }
  ],
  "configurations": [
    {
      "nodes": [
        {
          "cpeMatch": [
            {
              "criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:legalweb:wp_dsgvo_tools:*:*:*:*:*:wordpress:*:*",
              "matchCriteriaId": "F706DD52-8101-4A88-86BB-669622EE702F",
              "versionEndIncluding": "3.1.23",
              "vulnerable": true
            }
          ],
          "negate": false,
          "operator": "OR"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "cveTags": [],
  "descriptions": [
    {
      "lang": "en",
      "value": "WP DSGVO Tools (GDPR) \u003c= 3.1.23 had an AJAX action, \u2018admin-dismiss-unsubscribe\u2018, which lacked a capability check and a nonce check and was available to unauthenticated users, and did not check the post type when deleting unsubscription requests. As such, it was possible for an attacker to permanently delete an arbitrary post or page on the site by sending an AJAX request with the \u201caction\u201d parameter set to \u201cadmin-dismiss-unsubscribe\u201d and the \u201cid\u201d parameter set to the post to be deleted. Sending such a request would move the post to the trash, and repeating the request would permanently delete the post in question."
    },
    {
      "lang": "es",
      "value": "WP DSGVO Tools (GDPR) versiones anteriores a 3.1.23 incluy\u00e9ndola, ten\u00eda una acci\u00f3n AJAX, \"admin-dismiss-unsubscribe\", que carec\u00eda de una comprobaci\u00f3n de capacidad y de una comprobaci\u00f3n de nonce y estaba disponible para usuarios no autenticados, y no comprobaba el tipo de entrada cuando eliminaba las peticiones unsubscription. De este modo, un atacante pod\u00eda eliminar permanentemente una entrada o p\u00e1gina arbitraria del sitio enviando una petici\u00f3n AJAX con el par\u00e1metro \"action\" establecido como \"admin-dismiss-unsubscribe\" y el par\u00e1metro \"id\" establecido como la entrada que se iba a eliminar. El env\u00edo de dicha petici\u00f3n mover\u00eda el post a la papelera, y la repetici\u00f3n de la petici\u00f3n eliminar\u00eda permanentemente el post en cuesti\u00f3n"
    }
  ],
  "id": "CVE-2021-42359",
  "lastModified": "2026-06-17T04:09:41.203",
  "metrics": {
    "cvssMetricV2": [
      {
        "acInsufInfo": false,
        "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
        "cvssData": {
          "accessComplexity": "LOW",
          "accessVector": "NETWORK",
          "authentication": "NONE",
          "availabilityImpact": "PARTIAL",
          "baseScore": 6.4,
          "confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
          "integrityImpact": "PARTIAL",
          "vectorString": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:P",
          "version": "2.0"
        },
        "exploitabilityScore": 10.0,
        "impactScore": 4.9,
        "obtainAllPrivilege": false,
        "obtainOtherPrivilege": false,
        "obtainUserPrivilege": false,
        "source": "nvd@nist.gov",
        "type": "Primary",
        "userInteractionRequired": false
      }
    ],
    "cvssMetricV31": [
      {
        "cvssData": {
          "attackComplexity": "LOW",
          "attackVector": "NETWORK",
          "availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
          "baseScore": 7.5,
          "baseSeverity": "HIGH",
          "confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
          "integrityImpact": "NONE",
          "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
          "scope": "UNCHANGED",
          "userInteraction": "NONE",
          "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H",
          "version": "3.1"
        },
        "exploitabilityScore": 3.9,
        "impactScore": 3.6,
        "source": "security@wordfence.com",
        "type": "Secondary"
      },
      {
        "cvssData": {
          "attackComplexity": "LOW",
          "attackVector": "NETWORK",
          "availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
          "baseScore": 9.1,
          "baseSeverity": "CRITICAL",
          "confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
          "integrityImpact": "HIGH",
          "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
          "scope": "UNCHANGED",
          "userInteraction": "NONE",
          "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H",
          "version": "3.1"
        },
        "exploitabilityScore": 3.9,
        "impactScore": 5.2,
        "source": "nvd@nist.gov",
        "type": "Primary"
      }
    ],
    "ssvcV203": [
      {
        "source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
        "ssvcData": {
          "id": "CVE-2021-42359",
          "options": [
            {
              "exploitation": "none"
            },
            {
              "automatable": "yes"
            },
            {
              "technicalImpact": "partial"
            }
          ],
          "role": "CISA Coordinator",
          "timestamp": "2025-02-14T17:52:36.135166Z",
          "version": "2.0.3"
        }
      }
    ]
  },
  "published": "2021-11-05T21:15:09.393",
  "references": [
    {
      "source": "security@wordfence.com",
      "tags": [
        "Exploit",
        "Third Party Advisory"
      ],
      "url": "https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2021/11/vulnerability-in-wp-dsgvo-tools-gdpr-plugin-allows-unauthenticated-page-deletion/"
    },
    {
      "source": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
      "tags": [
        "Exploit",
        "Third Party Advisory"
      ],
      "url": "https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2021/11/vulnerability-in-wp-dsgvo-tools-gdpr-plugin-allows-unauthenticated-page-deletion/"
    }
  ],
  "sourceIdentifier": "security@wordfence.com",
  "vulnStatus": "Modified",
  "weaknesses": [
    {
      "description": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "CWE-284"
        }
      ],
      "source": "security@wordfence.com",
      "type": "Secondary"
    },
    {
      "description": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "CWE-862"
        }
      ],
      "source": "nvd@nist.gov",
      "type": "Primary"
    }
  ]
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline

Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC

JSON
How durations are calculated

Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.

Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.

Loading timeline…




    Related by attack behaviour

    Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.