WordPressCMS
CVE-2007-3238
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedCross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in functions.php in the default theme in WordPress 2.2 allows remote authenticated administrators to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the PATH_INFO (REQUEST_URI) to wp-admin/themes.php, a different vulnerability than CVE-2007-1622. NOTE: this might not cross privilege boundaries in some configurations, since the Administrator role has the unfiltered_html capability.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceCross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in WordPress 2.2's default theme functions.php allows authenticated administrators to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via PATH_INFO to wp-admin/themes.php.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
WordPressCMS
= 2.2CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- M
- Authentication
- Single
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:S/C:P/I:P/A:P
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Confirm WordPress installation existsLocate the WordPress installation directory and verify wp-admin/themes.php file is presentAffected if The WordPress installation directory with wp-admin/themes.php exists and is accessible via web
-
Check installed WordPress versionInspect the readme.html file in the WordPress root directory, or check the $wp_version variable in wp-includes/version.php, or view the meta generator tag on any WordPress page sourceAffected if The installed version is exactly WordPress 2.2
-
Verify administrator access to themes.phpLog in as an administrator and attempt to access wp-admin/themes.php via PATH_INFO, for example by requesting /wp-admin/themes.php/testAffected if An authenticated administrator can access wp-admin/themes.php with PATH_INFO appended to the URL
-
Check if default theme is activeInspect the wp_options table in the database for the 'template' and 'stylesheet' option values, or check the wp-content/themes directory for the active themeAffected if The default theme (named 'default') is set as the active theme in WordPress configuration
A user is affected if they are running exactly WordPress 2.2, have the default theme active, and allow authenticated administrators to access wp-admin/themes.php with PATH_INFO in the request URL
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade WordPress to a patched version. If upgrade is not possible, manually sanitize PATH_INFO/REQUEST_URI input in the theme's functions.php before use.
Fix this in WordPress
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,424.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2007-3238 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2007-3238 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data