The miniOrange OTP Login, Verification and SMS Notifications plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Authentication Bypass in versions up to, and including, 5.5.8 via the mo_by_pass_login() function. This is due to mo_delay_otp_process() short-circuiting the authentication flow before password validation or the administrator intent gate (added in 5.5.6) can run, combined with the Delay OTP grace flag (mov_last_verified_dttm) being stored as a user_meta row keyed solely by target user ID with no binding to the originating session, cookie, IP address, or device. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to authenticate as any WordPress user — including administrators — by submitting only a known username with the mo_wp_login_intent=otp parameter and any non-empty password, thereby inheriting a legitimate user's open Delay OTP grace window without ever supplying correct credentials. Exploitation requires the site to have OTP-only login (wp_login_skip_password=1, wp_login_skip_password_fallback=0) and Delay OTP Verification (wp_login_delay_otp=1) enabled, and the target account must currently be within its configured Delay OTP interval.
CVE-2026-103895
“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.
Score 8.1 from GitHub Security Advisory (severity: HIGH) published 2026-10-16. A secondary CVSS source baseline 8.1; sources differ by 0.0.
- High severity, but no confirmed exploitation yet
No fix is confirmed yet — apply a workaround or compensating control (WAF / firewall / segmentation) and watch for the fix.
The CVE record's CNA (Wordfence) lists cyberlord92 miniOrange OTP Login, Verification and SMS Notifications versions up to and including 5.5.8 as affected. No release containing a fix is confirmed on record.
- CVSS v3
- 8.1
- EG Score
- 8.1HIGHhigh confidence
- EG Risk
- 37EG Risk 37/100
EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.
How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)Severity81% × 45%Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 8.1 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.Exploitation0.4% × 40%FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.Automatability0% × 15%CISA's SSVC Automatable value: no (Vulnrichment).SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.Action: No fix is confirmed yet. Restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation within your standard update timelines, and watch the vendor's advisory for the fix. - EPSS PROB
- 0.4%
- EPSS %ILE
- 35th
- KEV
- Not listed
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (8.1): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 8.1 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 8.1 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
- EG Likelihood
- 0.4% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS (model v2026.06.15, score date 2026-10-17). FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
No fix is confirmed yet. Restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation within your standard update timelines, and watch the vendor's advisory for the fix.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (Vulnrichment). EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact total (CISA Vulnrichment). Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it
Published
October 16, 2026
Last Modified
October 16, 2026
References (8)
- security@wordfencehttps://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/miniorange-otp-verification/tags/5.5.7/handler/forms/class-wploginform.php#L1050
- security@wordfencehttps://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/miniorange-otp-verification/tags/5.5.7/handler/forms/class-wploginform.php#L1170
- security@wordfencehttps://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/miniorange-otp-verification/tags/5.5.7/handler/forms/class-wploginform.php#L1519
- security@wordfencehttps://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/miniorange-otp-verification/tags/5.5.7/handler/forms/class-wploginform.php#L1573
- security@wordfencehttps://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/miniorange-otp-verification/tags/5.5.7/handler/forms/class-wploginform.php#L511
- security@wordfencehttps://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/miniorange-otp-verification?rev=3741261
- security@wordfencehttps://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3733803/miniorange-otp-verification/trunk/handler/forms/class-wploginform.php
- security@wordfencehttps://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/4a3a7097-e184-40d0-9c26-7c5638c937a5?source=cve
Vendor Advisories for CVE-2026-103895(1)
These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.
Weakness Classification(1)
MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.
Data Freshness Timeline
(refreshed 13× in last 7d / 13× in last 30d)
Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.
- 2026-10-18 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 35th percentile
- 2026-10-18 05:09 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-17 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 35th percentile
- 2026-10-16 17:29 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-16 17:29 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-vw7g-2fxg-c3v8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.1
- 2026-10-16 16:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.4% · 35th percentile
- 2026-10-16 16:00 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-16 16:00 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-vw7g-2fxg-c3v8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.1
- 2026-10-16 15:06 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-16 15:06 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-vw7g-2fxg-c3v8 · GitHub severity HIGH · GitHub CVSS 8.1
- 2026-10-16 05:28 UTCEG score recompute
- 2026-10-16 04:44 UTCEG score recomputeFirst assessed: 8.1 HIGH
- 2026-10-16 04:42 UTCMITRE cvelistV5first tracked
Related CVEs(same CWE)
Frequently asked(5)
What is CVE-2026-103895?
When was the CVE record for CVE-2026-103895 published?
Is CVE-2026-103895 actively exploited?
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2026-103895?
How do I remediate CVE-2026-103895?
Dependency Blast Radius
Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2026-103895
Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2026-103895?
EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.