CVE-2026-1672: BEAR – Bulk Editor and Products Manager Professional for WooCommerce by Pluginus.Net <= 1.1.5 - Cross-Site Request Forgery to Product Data Modification
The BEAR – Bulk Editor and Products Manager Professional for WooCommerce by Pluginus.Net plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 1.1.5. This is due to missing nonce validation on the woobe_redraw_table_row() function. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to update WooCommerce product data including prices, descriptions, and other product fields via a forged request granted they can trick a site administrator or shop manager into performing an action such as clicking on a link.
Security readout for executives and security teams
Plain-English summary
A WordPress WooCommerce admin or shop manager could be tricked into clicking a crafted link that changes product data in BEAR Bulk Editor through version 1.1.5. The main business risk is product integrity: prices, descriptions, and other fields could be altered without attacker login.
Executive priority
Treat this as a moderate-priority ecommerce integrity issue. It is not described as wormable or actively exploited, but product tampering can create direct revenue, fraud, and customer-trust impact. Prioritize stores using the plugin in production.
Technical view
CVE-2026-1672 is a CWE-352 CSRF flaw in woobe_redraw_table_row() caused by missing nonce validation. It is network reachable and unauthenticated, but requires privileged user interaction. The CVSS 3.1 score is 6.5, with high integrity impact and no stated confidentiality or availability impact.
Likely exposure
Exposure is limited to WordPress sites running WooCommerce with BEAR Bulk Editor and Products Manager Professional through 1.1.5. Stores without this plugin are not indicated as affected. The provided affected-version metadata is incomplete, so confirm against plugin inventory and vendor records.
Exploitation context
The source bundle does not show CISA KEV listing or active exploitation. The described scenario requires social engineering a site administrator or shop manager into performing an action, such as clicking a link, that sends a forged product-update request.
Researcher notes
The strongest evidence is the CVE description, Wordfence advisory, CleanTalk research link, and WordPress Trac references. The bundle identifies the vulnerable function and missing nonce validation, but does not provide complete fixed-version metadata. Avoid assuming exploit-in-the-wild status.
Mitigation direction
Identify all sites using the affected BEAR WooCommerce bulk editor plugin.
Update the plugin if vendor guidance provides a fixed release beyond 1.1.5.
Restrict administrator and shop-manager sessions to trusted workstations and workflows.
Review WooCommerce product changes for unexpected price, description, or field updates.
Monitor vendor, Wordfence, and WordPress plugin repository guidance for confirmed remediation details.
Validation and detection
Check WordPress plugin inventory for woo-bulk-editor / BEAR versions through 1.1.5.
Review product audit logs for unauthorized price, description, or metadata changes.
Confirm whether the installed plugin version includes nonce validation for woobe_redraw_table_row().
Verify administrative users have not recently interacted with suspicious links or messages.
Track remediation status against the referenced WordPress Trac changesets and vendor advisories.
Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.
Potential ATT&CK relevance
Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context
These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.
ATT&CK lookup starting points
Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.
cwe · medium confidence lookup
CWE-352: User-session and phishing behavior lookup
Client-side and session-facing weaknesses should be reviewed alongside initial-access and user-execution behaviors. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.
These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.
We collect every scored CVSS vector available in the official CNA and ADP containers. When more than one version is present, the table keeps the source vectors side by side instead of collapsing them into the highest score.
CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.
CWE-352 · source CWE mapping
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.