CVE-2026-11997

NVD	https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-11997
CWE	https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/352.html

The Bulk SEO Image plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in versions up to and including 1.1. This is due to missing or incorrect nonce validation on the plugins settings page handler BulkSeoImage(), which dispatches to launchbulk() / BulkSeoImageGo() whenever the request contains $_POST[bulkseoimage]. No wp_nonce_field() is emitted in the form and no check_admin_referer()/wp_verify_nonce() is performed before bulk-overwriting the _wp_attachment_image_alt post meta for every image attached to every published post and/or page. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to bulk-overwrite image ALT-text metadata across the site via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator into performing an action such as clicking on a link.

Weakness

The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.

Potential Mitigations

Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482].
For example, use anti-CSRF packages such as the OWASP CSRFGuard. [REF-330]
Another example is the ESAPI Session Management control, which includes a component for CSRF. [REF-45]
Use the “double-submitted cookie” method as described by Felten and Zeller:
When a user visits a site, the site should generate a pseudorandom value and set it as a cookie on the user’s machine. The site should require every form submission to include this value as a form value and also as a cookie value. When a POST request is sent to the site, the request should only be considered valid if the form value and the cookie value are the same.
Because of the same-origin policy, an attacker cannot read or modify the value stored in the cookie. To successfully submit a form on behalf of the user, the attacker would have to correctly guess the pseudorandom value. If the pseudorandom value is cryptographically strong, this will be prohibitively difficult.
This technique requires Javascript, so it may not work for browsers that have Javascript disabled. [REF-331]

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Weakness

Potential Mitigations

References

CVE-2026-11997

Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)

Weakness

Potential Mitigations

Related Attack Patterns

References