WordPress Security Checker
Comprehensive WordPress security checklist with code examples. Learn best practices for securing plugins and themes with nonces, sanitization, capability checks, and more.
Did this tool work for you?
Community
User Reviews & Ratings
Be the first to share your experience
About this tool
About WordPress Security Checker
WordPress Security Checker is a free, browser-based reference for safer WordPress theme and plugin development. Review guidance and code examples covering nonces, sanitization, escaping, capability checks, secure settings, and related practices. The tool does not scan or modify your website; use its checklist alongside code review, updates, backups, staging tests, and appropriate security monitoring.
How to use WordPress Security Checker
1
Open the security checklist
Start with the reference categories and identify the parts most relevant to your WordPress project.
2
Choose a security area
Review topics such as input handling, output escaping, nonces, permissions, and secure configuration.
3
Read the best practice
Understand the risk the recommendation addresses and the context where it applies.
4
Inspect the example
Study the sample implementation and compare it with the corresponding code in your theme or plugin.
1 / 2
Key features
Security Checklist
Review common WordPress security controls in one focused reference.
Practical Examples
Learn how security patterns fit into everyday theme and plugin code.
Input Protection
Understand when to validate and sanitize values before storing or processing them.
Safer Output
Apply escaping appropriate to HTML, attributes, URLs, and other output contexts.
1 / 2
Who Uses the WordPress Security Checker?
A practical review guide for safer WordPress themes, plugins, forms, and custom code
Plugin reviews
Inspect custom plugin forms, settings, AJAX actions, and content handlers for common security gaps.
ExampleReview an admin settings form for a nonce, capability check, validation, sanitization, and escaped output.
Theme development
Apply safer patterns when displaying dynamic content, theme options, and user-controlled values.
ExampleCheck that dynamic template values are escaped for the exact HTML or attribute context where they appear.
Team code reviews
Use a shared checklist to make WordPress security considerations part of normal pull request review.
ExampleAsk reviewers to confirm authorization and output handling whenever a change adds a form or endpoint.
Legacy maintenance
Find areas to inspect when taking ownership of an older theme or plugin with unfamiliar code.
ExampleAudit direct database queries, admin actions, and stored settings before extending a legacy plugin.
Security learning
Learn the difference between request verification, authorization, input handling, and output encoding.
ExampleWork through each checklist section while building a small plugin in a local WordPress site.
Pre-release checks
Use the reference as one input to a final review before moving a custom WordPress feature to production.
ExampleRun through the checklist after feature completion and document any decisions or remaining risks.
Pro Tips for Safer WordPress Code
Review authorization, data handling, and output context together
Treat authorization separately
A valid nonce does not grant permission; always verify the current user has the required capability for the action.
Escape at output
Choose escaping based on where a value is rendered, and avoid assuming that previously sanitized data is safe in every context.
Validate before storing
Define the expected type, range, and format before saving settings or processing submitted values.
Browse WordPress FunctionsUse safe database patterns
Prefer WordPress APIs and prepared queries where database access is required, and minimize the data your code handles.
Keep dependencies updated
Update WordPress, themes, plugins, and libraries through a tested maintenance process with backups and rollback planning.
Test negative paths
Try missing tokens, insufficient permissions, malformed input, and logged-out requests rather than testing only the happy path.
