Attack ChainAIDerived
Hypothetical attack flow derived from CVE metadata – not a confirmed exploit chain
-
AccessReach plugin payment callback endpoint
-
ExploitForge unverified payment-confirmation response
-
ImpactWooCommerce order marked paid unpaid
Vulnerability Assessment
| Weakness |
CWE
OWASP Top 10:2025
A01:2025 - Broken Access Control
ASVS 5.0
V8 - Authorization Authorization checks on every request
MITRE ATT&CK
1 technique across 1 tactic: Privilege Escalation The technique list with ATT&CK links and the kill-chain view is part of the Basic plan and up. |
| Exploitation Conditions | Requires that the target WordPress site has the Snap Finance plugin (version ≤3.11.0) installed and active with Snap Finance enabled as a WooCommerce payment method, and that the plugin's payment-return/callback endpoint is reachable over the network. No authentication, credentials, or user interaction are needed (PR:N/UI:N), and default configurations are vulnerable because the plugin unconditionally trusts the payment provider's response instead of verifying an approved transaction. The main limiting factors are therefore deployment-based rather than technical: the specific plugin must be installed and offering Snap Finance at checkout, and an order must exist (which an attacker can create themselves) to be marked paid; impact is confined to fraudulent order status and does not yield data disclosure or site compromise. |
| Impact | This is a CVSS 5.3 (medium) flaw, and the signals are internally consistent rather than conflicting. The CVSS vector CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N makes it trivially reachable: remote, unauthenticated, low-complexity, no user interaction - any attacker who can reach the payment callback endpoint can attempt it. The impact is deliberately scoped to integrity only (C:N/I:L/A:N): no data is stolen and nothing is taken offline; instead orders are fraudulently marked paid, which is a direct financial-loss / fraud risk to the merchant rather than a system-compromise risk. Publicly available exploit code exists (reported by WPScan), which raises practical exploitability above the raw score. However, this is NOT in CISA KEV, and no EPSS score was provided in the input, so exploitation-probability cannot be quantified - treat widespread active exploitation as unconfirmed. No SSVC decision data was supplied either. Net assessment: a genuine, easy-to-exploit fraud vector for any store running this plugin, but the modest CVSS reflects the integrity-only impact and the comparatively narrow deployment footprint of a single-vendor payment plugin - prioritize patching for affected merchants, but it is not a mass-compromise crisis on the level of a critical RCE. |
| Exploit ScenarioDerived | A store running the Snap Finance plugin offers it as a WooCommerce checkout option. An unauthenticated attacker creates an order, then sends a forged payment-provider callback (or replays/crafts the return response) that the plugin accepts without verifying the transaction was actually approved, so the order flips to 'paid' and the attacker receives goods or services for free. A public proof-of-concept exists via WPScan, lowering the bar to reproduce this. |
Get an e-mail when this CVE is exploited, patched or re-scored. Free account.
Alert meAnalysisAIv1 – Oct 19, 2026
Unauthenticated attackers can mark arbitrary WooCommerce orders as paid on WordPress sites running the Snap Finance plugin through version 3.11.0, because the plugin's payment-return handling never verifies that the provider actually approved a completed transaction. Publicly available exploit code exists and the flaw needs no credentials or user interaction (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N, 5.3 medium), but exploitation is limited to sites where the plugin is active and Snap Finance is enabled as a checkout payment method. Impact is confined to integrity of order/payment status - fraudulent marking of orders as paid - with no data disclosure, site compromise, or availability loss.
RemediationAI
No vendor-released patch was identified at time of analysis - the affected range extends through 3.11.0 and no fixed version is documented in the available references (WPScan 62c8b34a-44f3-4739-9ca6-fce0f2a5ffaf, NVD CVE-2026-94273, VulDB 422267), so confirm with the plugin vendor or the WPScan record whether a release above 3.11.0 has since shipped before upgrading. Until a fix is confirmed, the most effective control is to disable Snap Finance as a WooCommerce payment method (WooCommerce → Settings → Payments), which removes the vulnerable return/callback path from checkout - the trade-off is loss of that payment option for customers. If the gateway must stay live, restrict network access to the plugin's payment-return/callback endpoint at the WAF or reverse proxy so only the payment provider's published IP ranges can reach it (side effect: provider range changes will break legitimate returns), and add a WAF rule rejecting requests that set an order to paid without a matching provider transaction reference. Complement this with operational detection: audit WooCommerce orders for status transitions to 'processing'/'completed' lacking a corresponding captured transaction, review recently modified orders for anomalies, and reconcile order records against Snap Finance settlement reports. Deactivating and removing the plugin entirely is the safest option where the integration is no longer required, and enforce least privilege on any WordPress accounts able to view order data during the investigation window.
Affected VersionsENISA
Affected Packages
Source: OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities)
Affects your stack
Affects 1 package in euvd
Checking this CVE against your own stacks and servers is part of the Basic plan and up.
Technical ContextAI · show details
The flaw is a classic missing-authorization/trust-boundary failure (CWE-862) in the WooCommerce payment gateway integration shipped by the Snap Finance WordPress plugin. In a conventional gateway flow, after the shopper returns from the provider (or the provider posts a callback/IPN), the plugin is expected to validate the response - authenticating the caller, checking the transaction status is approved, and confirming the order ID, amount, and currency match - before transitioning the WooCommerce order to 'processing'/'completed' (paid). Snap Finance ≤3.11.0 instead trusts the inbound payment-provider response and applies the paid status directly, so a crafted request naming an arbitrary order ID flips that order to paid without any funds being captured. Because the endpoint is reachable over the network and the code path has no capability or nonce check that binds the caller to the order, no authentication or interaction is required (PR:N/UI:N). The public CPE (cpe:2.3:a:unknown:snap_finance:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*) reflects that the vendor namespace was not normalized in NVD's CPE dictionary, so the authoritative scope comes from the EUVD version range (Snap Finance 0 ≤ 3.11.0) and WPScan. The underlying technology stack is WordPress plus WooCommerce, meaning exposure depends entirely on plugin deployment and gateway activation rather than on the WordPress core version.
Know when Snap Finance gets its next vulnerability
- Watch products and get an email when something new is published
- Check this CVE against your own stack and servers
- Exploit and PoC references, threat intelligence from 22 sources
No credit card · 7-day full trial
Severity by source
AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
Remote unauthenticated callback with no interaction (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N); integrity-only impact from falsifying order payment status (I:L), no confidentiality or availability effect.
Primary rating from Vendor (WPScan).
CVSS VectorVendor: WPScan
Lifecycle Timeline
3DescriptionCVE.org
The Snap Finance WordPress plugin through 3.11.0 does not verify that the payment provider's response actually confirms a completed, approved transaction before marking a WooCommerce order as paid, allowing unauthenticated attackers to mark arbitrary orders as paid without completing payment.
Threat Intelligence Overview
How this decision was reached
The engine reads each signal below and applies a fixed list of rules from top to bottom. The first rule that matches sets the recommended action – like a statement, every line is shown.
What every action level means
SSVC AssessmentENISA
Priority Score
Attack Technique
Authentication bypass attacks exploit flaws in the verification mechanisms that control access to systems and applications.
EUVD-2026-104088
GHSA-qrcf-6rx9-2mwc
NVD
CVE.org
EPSS
Vulnrichment
VulDB
Exploit-DB