Skip to content

CVE-2026-9180

Is CVE-2026-9180 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Public exploit
None known
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
5.3 Medium
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.3%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-639
CWE

Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Low signal — verdict needed

Few public signals point to active risk. Whether a scanner hit here is a true or false positive depends on your version and config — community verdicts decide.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N

The MotoPress Appointment Booking plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Authorization Bypass Through User-Controlled Key in all versions up to, and including, 2.4.4. This is due to the `POST /motopress/appointment/v1/bookings` REST endpoint being registered with `'permission_callback' => '__return_true'`, allowing unauthenticated access, while the `createBooking` handler in `BookingsRestController.php` accepts an attacker-supplied `payment_details.booking_id` value and loads the referenced booking via `findById()` without verifying that the caller owns or has any rights to that booking. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to overwrite the customer name, email address, phone number, and `customer_id` of any non-confirmed victim booking by submitting a request with no reservation items, causing `BookingService::createBooking()` to load the existing victim booking object and persist it with attacker-controlled customer data. Victim booking IDs can be harvested prior to exploitation without authentication by querying the also-publicly-accessible `GET /motopress/appointment/v1/bookings/reservations` endpoint with a guessable `service_id` and date range, and only bookings whose status is not `STATUS_CONFIRMED` (e.g., pending or auto-draft) are valid targets.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-9180
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-9180/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-9180)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-9180"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-9180/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-9180"></a>

Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.

Community ground truth

Be the first practitioner to weigh in

So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.

🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.

In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?

awaiting field verdicts
Real, but not a risk here
Not a real issue

No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.

Field notes & remediation

Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.

No notes yet. Be the first to share what you saw, or a fix that worked.

    Add a field note or remediationoptional
    Note type

    What are you adding?

    Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

    Same weakness: CWE-639.