FKIE_CVE-2026-10630
Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2026-08-25 02:16 - Updated: 2026-10-12 15:10| Vendor | Product | Version |
|---|
{
"affected": [
{
"affectedData": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"product": "WP Courses LMS \u2013 Online Courses Builder, eLearning Courses, Courses Solution, Education Courses",
"vendor": "hookandhook",
"versions": [
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "3.2.29",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"source": "security@wordfence.com"
}
],
"cveTags": [],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "The WP Courses LMS \u2013 Online Courses Builder, eLearning Courses, Courses Solution, Education Courses plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Insecure Direct Object Reference in all versions up to, and including, 3.2.29 via the \u0027resultID\u0027 parameter due to missing validation on a user controlled key. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with custom-level access and above, to read any other user\u0027s quiz answers and scores by enumerating the incrementing resultID value via the wpcq_get_quiz_result AJAX action. The only access control on this endpoint is a nonce check (wpc_nonce) that is exposed to every logged-in user on the frontend, providing no meaningful authorization barrier."
},
{
"lang": "es",
"value": "El plugin WP Courses LMS - Online Courses Builder, eLearning Courses, Courses Solution, Education Courses para WordPress es vulnerable a Referencia Directa a Objeto Insegura en todas las versiones hasta, e incluyendo, 3.2.29 a trav\u00e9s del par\u00e1metro \u0027resultID\u0027 debido a la falta de validaci\u00f3n en una clave controlada por el usuario. Esto hace posible que atacantes autenticados, con nivel de acceso personalizado y superior, lean las respuestas y puntuaciones de los cuestionarios de cualquier otro usuario enumerando el valor incrementable de resultID a trav\u00e9s de la acci\u00f3n AJAX wpcq_get_quiz_result. El \u00fanico control de acceso en este endpoint es una verificaci\u00f3n de nonce (wpc_nonce) que est\u00e1 expuesta a cada usuario conectado en el frontend, no proporcionando una barrera de autorizaci\u00f3n significativa."
}
],
"id": "CVE-2026-10630",
"lastModified": "2026-10-12T15:10:00.207",
"metrics": {
"cvssMetricV31": [
{
"cvssData": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 4.3,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "LOW",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N",
"version": "3.1"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 2.8,
"impactScore": 1.4,
"source": "security@wordfence.com",
"type": "Secondary"
}
],
"ssvcV203": [
{
"source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"ssvcData": {
"id": "CVE-2026-10630",
"options": [
{
"exploitation": "none"
},
{
"automatable": "no"
},
{
"technicalImpact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-08-25T18:09:49.886228Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
}
}
]
},
"published": "2026-08-25T02:16:39.037",
"references": [
{
"source": "security@wordfence.com",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wp-courses/tags/3.2.28/classes/WPCQ_Ajax.php#L28"
},
{
"source": "security@wordfence.com",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wp-courses/tags/3.2.28/classes/WPCQ_Ajax.php#L87"
},
{
"source": "security@wordfence.com",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wp-courses/tags/3.2.28/classes/WPCQ_Ajax.php#L91"
},
{
"source": "security@wordfence.com",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wp-courses/tags/3.2.29/classes/WPCQ_Ajax.php#L28"
},
{
"source": "security@wordfence.com",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wp-courses/tags/3.2.29/classes/WPCQ_Ajax.php#L87"
},
{
"source": "security@wordfence.com",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wp-courses/tags/3.2.29/classes/WPCQ_Ajax.php#L91"
},
{
"source": "security@wordfence.com",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?reponame=\u0026old=3660496%40wp-courses\u0026new=3660496%40wp-courses"
},
{
"source": "security@wordfence.com",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/83936cda-e868-44f6-be5d-f26086bc4688?source=cve"
}
],
"sourceIdentifier": "security@wordfence.com",
"vulnStatus": "Deferred",
"weaknesses": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-639"
}
],
"source": "security@wordfence.com",
"type": "Secondary"
}
]
}
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.
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
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…
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
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.