Skip to content

CVE-2026-9188

Is CVE-2026-9188 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 Appointment Bookings for Zoom GoogleMeet and more – Wappointment plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Insecure Direct Object Reference in all versions up to and including 2.7.6 via the `appointmentkey` parameter due to the appointment `edit_key` — the sole authorization token consumed by `tryCancel()` — being generated as a predictable, unsalted MD5 hash of only `client_id` (a sequential integer), `start_at` (a publicly observable appointment timestamp), and `staff_id` (a small enumerable integer), with no secret salt or random component, and the unauthenticated cancellation and rescheduling REST endpoints performing no ownership or identity verification beyond matching this reconstructible key. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to compute valid `edit_key` values for appointments belonging to other users and cancel or reschedule those appointments arbitrarily. Exploitation requires the `allow_cancellation` or `allow_rescheduling` setting to be enabled on the site, both of which are common configurations for active booking deployments; an attacker can obtain the inputs needed to reconstruct a victim's key by booking their own appointment to observe their sequential `client_id` and correlating publicly visible appointment times and enumerable staff identifiers.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-9188
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-9188/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-9188)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-9188"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-9188/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-9188"></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.