FKIE_CVE-2026-15023
Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2026-08-25 02:16 - Updated: 2026-10-12 15:10
Severity
Summary
The Events Manager – Calendar, Bookings, Tickets, and more! plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to generic SQL Injection via Stored 'meta_key' via Event/Location Duplicate Action in all versions up to, and including, 7.4.0 due to insufficient escaping on the user supplied parameter and lack of sufficient preparation on the existing SQL query. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with contributor-level access and above, to append additional SQL queries into already existing queries that can be used to extract sensitive information from the database. This is a second-order SQL injection: an attacker first plants SQL metacharacters in a custom meta key via the standard add-meta flow (WordPress stores these verbatim in wp_postmeta), then triggers the injection by invoking the event_duplicate or location_duplicate action, which reads the stored meta keys via get_post_meta() and concatenates them unsafely into the INSERT query.
References
Impacted products
| Vendor | Product | Version |
|---|
{
"affected": [
{
"affectedData": [
{
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"product": "Events Manager \u2013 Calendar, Bookings, Tickets, and more!",
"vendor": "netweblogic",
"versions": [
{
"lessThanOrEqual": "7.4.0",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
}
],
"source": "security@wordfence.com"
}
],
"cveTags": [],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "The Events Manager \u2013 Calendar, Bookings, Tickets, and more! plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to generic SQL Injection via Stored \u0027meta_key\u0027 via Event/Location Duplicate Action in all versions up to, and including, 7.4.0 due to insufficient escaping on the user supplied parameter and lack of sufficient preparation on the existing SQL query. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with contributor-level access and above, to append additional SQL queries into already existing queries that can be used to extract sensitive information from the database. This is a second-order SQL injection: an attacker first plants SQL metacharacters in a custom meta key via the standard add-meta flow (WordPress stores these verbatim in wp_postmeta), then triggers the injection by invoking the event_duplicate or location_duplicate action, which reads the stored meta keys via get_post_meta() and concatenates them unsafely into the INSERT query."
},
{
"lang": "es",
"value": "El plugin Events Manager - Calendar, Bookings, Tickets, y m\u00e1s! para WordPress es vulnerable a una inyecci\u00f3n SQL gen\u00e9rica a trav\u00e9s de \u0027meta_key\u0027 almacenada mediante la acci\u00f3n de duplicaci\u00f3n de evento/ubicaci\u00f3n en todas las versiones hasta la 7.4.0, inclusive, debido a un escape insuficiente en el par\u00e1metro proporcionado por el usuario y a la falta de preparaci\u00f3n suficiente en la consulta SQL existente. Esto hace posible que atacantes autenticados, con acceso de nivel de colaborador y superior, a\u00f1adan consultas SQL adicionales a consultas ya existentes que pueden usarse para extraer informaci\u00f3n sensible de la base de datos. Esta es una inyecci\u00f3n SQL de segundo orden: un atacante primero inserta metacaracteres SQL en una clave meta personalizada a trav\u00e9s del flujo est\u00e1ndar de a\u00f1adir meta (WordPress los almacena textualmente en wp_postmeta), luego activa la inyecci\u00f3n invocando la acci\u00f3n event_duplicate o location_duplicate, que lee las claves meta almacenadas a trav\u00e9s de get_post_meta() y las concatena de forma insegura en la consulta INSERT."
}
],
"id": "CVE-2026-15023",
"lastModified": "2026-10-12T15:10:00.207",
"metrics": {
"cvssMetricV31": [
{
"cvssData": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 6.5,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"integrityImpact": "NONE",
"privilegesRequired": "LOW",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
"version": "3.1"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 2.8,
"impactScore": 3.6,
"source": "security@wordfence.com",
"type": "Secondary"
}
],
"ssvcV203": [
{
"source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"ssvcData": {
"id": "CVE-2026-15023",
"options": [
{
"exploitation": "none"
},
{
"automatable": "no"
},
{
"technicalImpact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2026-08-25T15:18:05.086232Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
}
}
]
},
"published": "2026-08-25T02:16:39.940",
"references": [
{
"source": "security@wordfence.com",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/events-manager/tags/7.2.3.1/classes/em-event.php#L1720"
},
{
"source": "security@wordfence.com",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/events-manager/tags/7.2.3.1/classes/em-event.php#L1727"
},
{
"source": "security@wordfence.com",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/events-manager/tags/7.2.3.1/classes/em-location.php#L613"
},
{
"source": "security@wordfence.com",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/events-manager/tags/7.2.3.1/classes/em-location.php#L620"
},
{
"source": "security@wordfence.com",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/events-manager/tags/7.2.3.1/em-actions.php#L160"
},
{
"source": "security@wordfence.com",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/events-manager/tags/7.2.3.1/em-actions.php#L316"
},
{
"source": "security@wordfence.com",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/events-manager/tags/7.3.6/classes/em-event.php#L1720"
},
{
"source": "security@wordfence.com",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/events-manager/tags/7.3.6/classes/em-event.php#L1727"
},
{
"source": "security@wordfence.com",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/events-manager/tags/7.3.6/classes/em-location.php#L613"
},
{
"source": "security@wordfence.com",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/events-manager/tags/7.3.6/classes/em-location.php#L620"
},
{
"source": "security@wordfence.com",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/events-manager/tags/7.3.6/em-actions.php#L160"
},
{
"source": "security@wordfence.com",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/events-manager/tags/7.3.6/em-actions.php#L316"
},
{
"source": "security@wordfence.com",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?old_path=/events-manager/tags/7.4.0.1\u0026new_path=/events-manager/tags/7.4.1"
},
{
"source": "security@wordfence.com",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/fe1e8c38-345a-4529-81ba-188a8dc58503?source=cve"
}
],
"sourceIdentifier": "security@wordfence.com",
"vulnStatus": "Deferred",
"weaknesses": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-89"
}
],
"source": "security@wordfence.com",
"type": "Secondary"
}
]
}
Loading…
Loading…
Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.
Experimental. This forecast is provided for visualization only and may change without notice. Do not use it for operational decisions.
Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.
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.
Vulnerability timeline
Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC
How durations are calculated
Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.
Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.
Loading timeline…
Loading…
Loading…
The MITRE ATT&CK techniques below are AI-generated suggestions, inferred from the description of the
vulnerability by the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-classification-roberta-base
model, served locally by ML-Gateway.
They have not been verified by an analyst and are provided for guidance only.
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.
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.
Loading…
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.