cssimmon WP BackItUp Community Edition Plugin up to 2.1.0 on WordPress basename backup_file path traversal
| CVSS Meta Temp Score | Current Exploit Price (≈) | CTI Interest Score |
|---|---|---|
| 3.8 | $0-$5k | 0.00+ |
Summary
A vulnerability, which was classified as problematic, has been found in cssimmon WP BackItUp Community Edition Plugin up to 2.1.0. Affected by this issue is the function basename. This manipulation of the argument backup_file causes path traversal.
This vulnerability is handled as CVE-2026-18386. The attack can be initiated remotely. There is not any exploit available.
Details
A vulnerability classified as problematic was found in cssimmon WP BackItUp Community Edition Plugin up to 2.1.0. Affected by this vulnerability is the function basename. The manipulation of the argument backup_file with an unknown input leads to a path traversal vulnerability. The CWE definition for the vulnerability is CWE-22. The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory. As an impact it is known to affect confidentiality. The summary by CVE is:
The WP BackItUp Community Edition plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Directory Traversal in all versions up to, and including, 2.1.0 via the 'backup_file' parameter parameter. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with administrator-level access and above, to read the contents of arbitrary files on the server, which can contain sensitive information. The basename() normalization present in the handler only executes when the traversed target path does not exist, providing no protection against reads of existing files.
The advisory is shared at wordfence.com. This vulnerability is known as CVE-2026-18386 since 07/30/2026. The exploitation appears to be easy. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploitation needs additional levels of successful authentication. Technical details are known, but no exploit is available. MITRE ATT&CK project uses the attack technique T1006 for this issue.
There is no information about possible countermeasures known. It may be suggested to replace the affected object with an alternative product.
If you want to get the best quality for vulnerability data then you always have to consider VulDB.
Product
Type
Vendor
Name
Version
CPE 2.3
CPE 2.2
CVSSv4
VulDB Vector: 🔒VulDB Reliability: 🔍
CVSSv3
VulDB Meta Base Score: 3.8VulDB Meta Temp Score: 3.8
VulDB Base Score: 2.7
VulDB Temp Score: 2.7
VulDB Vector: 🔒
VulDB Reliability: 🔍
CNA Base Score: 4.9
CNA Vector (Wordfence): 🔒
CVSSv2
| AV | AC | Au | C | I | A |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 | 💳 |
| Vector | Complexity | Authentication | Confidentiality | Integrity | Availability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
| Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
VulDB Base Score: 🔒
VulDB Temp Score: 🔒
VulDB Reliability: 🔍
Exploiting
Class: Path traversalCWE: CWE-22
CAPEC: 🔒
ATT&CK: 🔒
Physical: No
Local: No
Remote: Yes
Availability: 🔒
Status: Not defined
Price Prediction: 🔍
Current Price Estimation: 🔒
| 0-Day | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Today | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock | Unlock |
Threat Intelligence
Interest: 🔍Active Actors: 🔍
Active APT Groups: 🔍
Countermeasures
Recommended: no mitigation knownStatus: 🔍
0-Day Time: 🔒
Timeline
07/30/2026 CVE reserved09/10/2026 Advisory disclosed
09/10/2026 VulDB entry created
09/10/2026 VulDB entry last update
Sources
Advisory: wordfence.comStatus: Not defined
CVE: CVE-2026-18386 (🔒)
GCVE (CVE): GCVE-0-2026-18386
GCVE (VulDB): GCVE-100-401941
Entry
Created: 09/10/2026 06:06Changes: 09/10/2026 06:06 (64)
Complete: 🔍
Cache ID: 216::103
If you want to get the best quality for vulnerability data then you always have to consider VulDB.
No comments yet. Languages: en.
Please log in to comment.