GHSA-WC6Q-34RR-PV23
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-10-10 06:30 – Updated: 2026-10-10 06:30The Avada (Fusion) Builder plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass in all versions up to, and including, 7.16.1. This is due to the plugin not properly verifying authorization before dispatching a WordPress action hook whose name is taken from an attacker-supplied form-field value (via the notification email_message [field] placeholder and the {action_hook,...} dynamic-data token; the 3.16.1 trust gate is_content_request_supplied() only inspects $_POST['args']/$_GET['args'], never the $_POST['formData'] the public form-submit endpoint parses). This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to invoke arbitrary WordPress action hooks (multiple per request), causing state changes up to permanent, irreversible destruction of site content: a verified unauthenticated request permanently deleted trashed posts, pages, and comments via the core wp_scheduled_delete action. Other non-deny-listed hooks extend the impact to denial of service (e.g. wp_maybe_auto_update) and, where vulnerable third-party handlers are installed, further privileged writes. The same unauthenticated dynamic-data pipeline additionally exposes a blind arbitrary user/post-meta read; the read result is delivered only to the site owner and is not attacker-exfiltrable through the plugin's own email/response paths. Exploitation requires a published Avada form with AJAX submission and a notification whose email_message template includes an [all_fields] or explicit [field] placeholder - the default form configuration.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-97670"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-94"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-10-10T05:16:40Z",
"severity": "CRITICAL"
},
"details": "The Avada (Fusion) Builder plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass in all versions up to, and including, 7.16.1. This is due to the plugin not properly verifying authorization before dispatching a WordPress action hook whose name is taken from an attacker-supplied form-field value (via the notification email_message [field] placeholder and the {action_hook,...} dynamic-data token; the 3.16.1 trust gate is_content_request_supplied() only inspects $_POST[\u0027args\u0027]/$_GET[\u0027args\u0027], never the $_POST[\u0027formData\u0027] the public form-submit endpoint parses). This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to invoke arbitrary WordPress action hooks (multiple per request), causing state changes up to permanent, irreversible destruction of site content: a verified unauthenticated request permanently deleted trashed posts, pages, and comments via the core wp_scheduled_delete action. Other non-deny-listed hooks extend the impact to denial of service (e.g. wp_maybe_auto_update) and, where vulnerable third-party handlers are installed, further privileged writes. The same unauthenticated dynamic-data pipeline additionally exposes a blind arbitrary user/post-meta read; the read result is delivered only to the site owner and is not attacker-exfiltrable through the plugin\u0027s own email/response paths. Exploitation requires a published Avada form with AJAX submission and a notification whose email_message template includes an [all_fields] or explicit [field] placeholder - the default form configuration.",
"id": "GHSA-wc6q-34rr-pv23",
"modified": "2026-10-10T06:30:58Z",
"published": "2026-10-10T06:30:58Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-97670"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://avada.com/blog/version-7-16-2-security-update"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/e2c00795-c49b-4b0a-8f0a-4ed18c966c6b?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
Related by attack behaviour
Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.