CVE-2026-54829: WP Photo Album Plus SQL Injection Vulnerability (v9.1.13.005)
A SQL injection vulnerability exists in WP Photo Album Plus through version 9.1.13.005 that allows attackers to extract sensitive database information through blind SQL injection techniques. Unlike standard SQL injection, blind attacks don't directly display query results; instead, attackers infer data by observing application behavior—making detection harder but exploitation still feasible without special privileges or user interaction.
Source data · NVD / CISA · public domain
- CVSS
- 3.1 · 7.5 HIGH · CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
- Weaknesses (CWE)
- CWE-89
- Affected products
- 0 configuration(s)
- Published / Modified
- 2026-06-25 / 2026-06-25
NVD description (verbatim)
Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection') vulnerability in Jacob N. Breetvelt WP Photo Album Plus allows Blind SQL Injection. This issue affects WP Photo Album Plus: from n/a through 9.1.13.005.
1 reference(s) · View on NVD →
SEC.co analysis · AI-assisted, reviewed against source
Technical summary
CVE-2026-54829 is a blind SQL injection flaw (CWE-89) in WP Photo Album Plus stemming from improper neutralization of special characters in SQL commands. The vulnerability permits unauthenticated attackers to craft malicious input that alters database query logic, allowing information disclosure. The CVSS 3.1 score of 7.5 (HIGH) reflects network-accessible exploitation, reasonable attack complexity, and significant confidentiality impact paired with minor availability risk across trust boundaries.
Business impact
This vulnerability enables unauthorized database reconnaissance and extraction of sensitive WordPress data—user credentials, email addresses, plugin configurations, and potentially customer records. For sites hosting customer data or using WP Photo Album Plus in production environments, successful exploitation could lead to data breaches, regulatory exposure (GDPR, CCPA), and reputational damage. The blind SQL injection nature means attackers can operate stealthily over time without obvious application errors.
Affected systems
WP Photo Album Plus versions up to and including 9.1.13.005 are vulnerable. The plugin author is Jacob N. Breetvelt. Organizations running affected versions on WordPress installations—particularly those exposed to untrusted networks or handling sensitive data—face direct risk. Site administrators should verify their deployed version and check for available patches from the vendor.
Exploitability
This vulnerability requires network access but no authentication or user interaction, making it accessible to unauthenticated attackers. Attack complexity is rated as high, suggesting some environmental factors or timing requirements complicate exploitation—possibly related to query structure or application logic. However, blind SQL injection tools and techniques are well-documented and relatively mature, so exploitation is practical for competent threat actors once environmental nuances are understood.
Remediation
Patch WP Photo Album Plus to a version later than 9.1.13.005 as provided by the vendor. Simultaneously, implement input validation and parameterized queries throughout the plugin codebase to prevent SQL injection. WordPress site administrators should prioritize this update given the network-accessible and unauthenticated nature of the attack vector. If immediate patching is unavailable, restrict access to the plugin's input endpoints via Web Application Firewall rules or .htaccess while awaiting patches.
Patch guidance
Verify availability of a patched version from Jacob N. Breetvelt or the official WP Photo Album Plus repository (WordPress.org plugin directory). Deploy updates in a staging environment first to confirm compatibility with other plugins and themes. After patching, clear any cached versions and monitor application logs for exploitation attempts prior to the update. Organizations unable to patch immediately should escalate to risk management and consider disabling the plugin temporarily if business logic permits.
Detection guidance
Monitor for SQL injection payloads in web access logs targeting the plugin's vulnerable input points—look for patterns like single quotes, SQL keywords (UNION, SELECT, OR, AND), time-based delays, and conditional logic in HTTP parameters. Web Application Firewall rules targeting SQL injection (such as ModSecurity CRS rules) should flag suspicious queries. Database query logging may reveal unusual SELECT queries or authentication-related probes. Blind SQL injection often manifests as repeated, similar requests with minor variations, so baseline normal traffic and alert on deviations.
Why prioritize this
This vulnerability merits immediate attention due to its HIGH CVSS score, unauthenticated network-accessible attack surface, and direct impact on data confidentiality. Blind SQL injection is stealthier than reflected injection, reducing detection likelihood. Organizations running WP Photo Album Plus on public-facing sites should patch urgently. Those with sensitive customer or business data are at heightened risk and should treat this as a critical priority.
Risk score, explained
The CVSS 3.1 score of 7.5 reflects: network accessibility (AV:N) and no privilege requirement (PR:N) increasing exploitability; reasonable attack complexity (AC:H) due to environmental factors; high confidentiality impact (C:H) from database disclosure; minimal integrity/availability impact (I:N/A:L); and scope change (S:C) indicating cross-trust-boundary compromise. The high confidentiality impact and borderless scope elevate severity despite attack complexity constraints.
Frequently asked questions
What is blind SQL injection and how does it differ from standard SQL injection?
Blind SQL injection extracts data indirectly by observing application responses or behavior rather than viewing query results directly. Attackers infer information by asking yes/no questions through conditional SQL logic—for example, checking if a character in a password matches a guessed value based on response time or content differences. This makes exploitation slower and stealthier, but no less effective for determined attackers.
Do I need active internet traffic to be exploited, or can this happen locally?
This vulnerability requires network access (AV:N in CVSS), so it can be triggered from any network-connected system. Local-only WordPress installations without web exposure face lower risk, but any publicly accessible site running vulnerable WP Photo Album Plus is at risk from remote unauthenticated attackers.
Will a WAF rule block this attack?
A properly configured Web Application Firewall with SQL injection detection rules (such as OWASP ModSecurity CRS) can block many SQL injection attempts by pattern-matching payloads. However, sophisticated or obfuscated blind SQL injection queries may evade generic rules, especially if timing-based techniques are employed. WAF rules are a necessary layer but not a substitute for patching.
What if the plugin developer hasn't released a patch yet?
Immediately escalate to your risk and product teams. Options include disabling the plugin if business logic permits, restricting access via IP allowlists or authentication layers, implementing strict input validation outside the plugin, or migrating to an alternative solution. Monitor the vendor's advisory channels for patch availability and test thoroughly before deploying any fix.
This analysis is provided for informational purposes to assist security professionals in risk assessment and remediation planning. No exploit code or weaponizable proof-of-concept is included. Organizations should verify patch availability and compatibility with their specific environment before deployment. Consult the official vendor advisory and security bulletins for authoritative guidance. This vulnerability analysis does not constitute professional security advice; engage qualified security personnel for incident response and compliance assessment. Source: NVD (public-domain), retrieved 2026-08-03. Analysis generated by SEC.co (claude-haiku-4-5).
Weaknesses (CWE)
Related vulnerabilities
- CVE-2016-20062HIGHSQL Injection in Simply Poll 1.4.1 WordPress Plugin - Unauthenticated Data Theft
- CVE-2016-20063HIGHSQL Injection in Single Personal Message 1.0.3 – Credential & Data Theft Risk
- CVE-2016-20065HIGHUnauthenticated SQL Injection in Product Catalog 8 WordPress Plugin
- CVE-2016-20068HIGHUnauthenticated SQL Injection in WordPress Booking Calendar Contact Form 1.0.23
- CVE-2016-20069HIGHUnauthenticated SQL Injection in WordPress Booking Calendar Contact Form 1.0.23
- CVE-2016-20071HIGHCritical SQL Injection in WordPress 404 Redirection Manager Plugin v1.0
- CVE-2016-20072HIGHBBS e-Franchise WordPress Plugin SQL Injection – Remote Data Exfiltration Risk
- CVE-2016-20073HIGHSQL Injection in Answer My Question 1.3 WordPress Plugin