Skip to main content

CVE-2026-103479Pubjet | پاب‌جت improper privilege management

Schedule itHigh7.6EPSS not scored yet

CVE-2026-103479 is a improper privilege management in Pubjet | پاب‌جت, rated high (7.6 on CVSS 3.1).

Why this priority: High severity, with no exploitation signal yet.

Published · Updated · NVD status: Deferred

What it is

The software lets a user or process gain privileges it should not have.

How it is reached

An attacker can exploit it over the network, with an ordinary user account, and nobody has to click anything.

What an attacker gains

A successful attack can change data or behaviour. In practice, this kind of flaw lets an attacker reach data or actions their role should not allow.

Is it being exploited?

There is no public report of exploitation yet.

What to do

  1. No fixed version is listed yet. Find every place Pubjet | پاب‌جت runs, watch the references for a fix, and plan a replacement if it is no longer supported.
  2. While there is no fix, review who holds accounts that can reach it.

Description from NVD

The Pubjet | پاب‌جت plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Privilege Escalation in all versions up to, and including, 5.4.8. This is due to the `checkToken()` AJAX handler — registered under `wp_ajax_pubjet-check-token` — performing no capability check and no nonce verification before unconditionally writing the attacker-supplied `token` GET parameter directly into the site-wide `pubjet_settings` option via `pubjet_update_setting()`, prior to any remote validation. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to overwrite the plugin's stored REST API credential with an attacker-chosen value, immediately elevating their effective privileges to those of an authorized Pubjet API client and enabling them to invoke otherwise-restricted endpoints — `createReportage`, `updateReportage`, `deleteReportage`, `toggleCopyright`, and `createBacklink` — to create, modify, and delete arbitrary reportage posts and manipulate plugin state that Subscribers cannot normally access. The privilege escalation is self-reinforcing: because `RestApi::isTokenValid()` authenticates solely by comparing the incoming `Authorization` header against the value returned by `pubjet_token()`, which reads from the same option the unprotected handler writes to, the attacker-planted token is trusted as legitimate on all subsequent requests.

What this means for your architecture.

A CVE names a product. Whether it matters depends on where that product sits in your systems: what reaches it, which trust boundary it guards and what it can reach once compromised. Veriom maps your components, their relationships and your trust boundaries from your code, cloud and delivery evidence, so you can see where a component like this sits. The radar itself does not look at your systems.

Components it touches

  • WordPress sites and their plugins. Plugins run inside the site with its database access, and many sites are public.
  • Permission checks in APIs and admin surfaces. The flaw sits between one role or tenant and another.
  • Multi-tenant services. The flaw sits between one role or tenant and another.

Trust boundaries in play

  • Authenticated network access. An account is needed, so exposure follows who can sign in: customers, partners or staff.
  • Between one role or tenant and another. An attacker who crosses it can reach data or actions their role should not allow.

Questions to answer about your own systems

  • Where does Pubjet | پاب‌جت run in your systems, and at which version?
  • Which of those instances can be reached from the internet or partner networks?
  • What can it reach once compromised: which data stores, secrets and services?

Sources

  • CVE records and CVSS scores from the NVD CVE API. This product uses the NVD API but is not endorsed or certified by the NVD.
  • Exploitation status from CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.
  • Exploit likelihood from FIRST’s Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS), refreshed daily.
  • Explanations are written by Veriom from fixed templates over each record’s data, not by a person reviewing each CVE. Descriptions are quoted from the records as published.