Home/CVE/The JetFormBuilder, Dynamic Blocks Form Builder plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass in all versio
CVE

CVE-2026-13459

The JetFormBuilder, Dynamic Blocks Form Builder plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass in all versio

The JetFormBuilder, Dynamic Blocks Form Builder plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass in all versions up to, and including, 3.6.3. This is due to the plugin not properly verifying that a user is authorized to perform an action. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to retrieve every distinct value stored under any arbitrary wp_postmeta key on the site, including WooCommerce billing PII such as _billing_email, _billing_phone, and _billing_address fields, order totals, attachment paths, and any third-party plugin credentials or tokens stored in post meta, provided at least one published JetFormBuilder form with a get_from_db generator field exists on the site. Exploitation requires that the target site has at least one published jet-form-builder post containing a field whose generator_function is set to get_from_db.

an attacker must supply a matching form ID, field name, and generator ID in the request, but all of these can be discovered by browsing the site's public forms.

MEDIUM · CVSS 5.3 EPSS 0.00579
EPSS exploitation odds0.58% · top 56%
Monitor
  • No active-exploitation, high-EPSS, or public-exploit signals - routine patching cadence
Look this up elsewhere - one-click external pivots
How to read a CVE - triage first, then detect and patch
This page is every public fact about CVE-2026-13459, cross-linked. Its job is to answer one question fast - does this need my attention now? - and then hand you the two things you do about it. Here is how an analyst reads it.
Triage: should I act now? Four signals, and they are not interchangeable:
CVSSseverity - how bad it is IF exploited, 0-10. A high CVSS alone is not urgency; a flaw can be a perfect 10 and never actually be attacked. EPSSprobability - a model’s estimate of the chance it is exploited in the next 30 days, 0-1. This is the “will it actually happen” signal. CISA KEVconfirmed - it is being exploited in the wild right now. The strongest signal on the page; KEV beats any score. Weaponisedavailability - public exploits / PoCs, and especially Metasploit modules rated Excellent / Great. Reliable, packaged exploit code means low-skill attackers can use it today.
How they combine: KEV, or a dependable Metasploit module, means patch now regardless of CVSS. High CVSS + low EPSS + no exploit is real but not an emergency - schedule it. Low CVSS but KEV-listed still gets patched now. The verdict above already weighed these for you; this is how it got there.
Then what - two workflows:
Detectwhen you cannot patch today, follow this CVE to the ATT&CK techniques it enables, then Build a SIEM detection (the green button) - author a rule, test it in Atomic, deploy it. That buys visibility while the patch waits. PatchAffected products / packages tell you if you are exposed; Fixed versions by distribution and Vendor advisories give the exact version that closes it.
Reading order for the panels below: verdict + badges, then Public exploits / Metasploit (is it weaponised), then ATT&CK techniques + Sigma / IDS rules (can I detect it), then Affected products / packages + Fixed versions (am I exposed, what patches it), then Threat actors / IOCs (who uses it), then Scoring & timeline / references (the evidence).

Severity & exploitation scoring

View on NVD →
CVSS base score
5.3
MEDIUMCVSS v3.1 · [email protected]
EPSS exploitation probability
0.58%
Top 56%odds of exploitation in the next 30 days
CVSS metric silhouette
VectorComplexityPrivilegesInteractionScopeConfidentialityIntegrityAvailability
shape grows toward worst-case
SSVC triage
No SSVC vulnrichment for this CVE. CISA's Vulnrichment program scores newer CVEs (~2024 onwards) plus selected older critical ones. Use the EPSS probability + KEV status to triage instead.
CVSS vector breakdown
Exploitability - how they get in
Attack Vector
Network Adjacent Local Physical
Attack Complexity
Low High
Privileges Required
None Low High
User Interaction
None Required
Scope
Unchanged Changed
Impact - what breaks
Confidentiality
None Low High
Integrity
None Low High
Availability
None Low High
VECTORCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

ATT&CK techniques

1

Techniques this CVE enables. Pills with a solid outline are high confidence - named directly in ATT&CK or Nuclei, or human-curated by CTID; the rest are inferred from the weakness type using MITRE's CVE Mapping Methodology and the CWE → CAPEC chain. Broad, generic-weakness guesses are filtered out. A small marks a technique that N independent sources agree on.

▤ Build a SIEM detection for these techniques

CAPEC attack patterns

1

Attack patterns this CVE enables - the bridge from weakness to ATT&CK technique.

Weakness Classification

🔗

References & Sources

12
Source URLs (vendor pages, mailing lists, write-ups). Exploit/PoC links are in their own section above to avoid duplication.