CVE-2015-9411
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 · uneditedThe Postmatic plugin before 1.4.6 for WordPress has XSS.
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 · moderate confidenceThe Postmatic WordPress plugin before version 1.4.6 contains a Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability. This allows attackers to inject malicious client-side scripts into web pages viewed by users of the affected site, potentially leading to session hijacking, credential theft, or malware distribution.
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< 1.4.6CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
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.
-
Locate the Postmatic plugin versionIn WordPress admin, go to Plugins > Installed Plugins and find the 'Postmatic' or 'Gopostmatic Replyable' entry. The version number is displayed below the plugin name.Affected if The displayed version is lower than 1.4.6 (for example, 1.4.5, 1.4.0, or any version number below 1.4.6)
-
Verify the plugin is activeIn the same Plugins screen, confirm the Postmatic/Replyable plugin shows as 'Active' rather than 'Inactive'.Affected if The plugin is active and the version is below 1.4.6
-
Check plugin files for version metadataIf admin access is limited, access the WordPress site files via FTP or hosting control panel. Navigate to wp-content/plugins/ and locate the postmatic or replyable folder. Open the main plugin PHP file (often named index.php, postmatic.php, or replyable.php) and locate the 'Version' field in the plugin header comment.Affected if The version string in the file header reads lower than 1.4.6
You are affected if the Gopostmatic Replyable/Postmatic plugin is installed and active with a version number below 1.4.6, as this version range contains the vulnerable XSS code.
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 data1.4.6
Update the Postmatic plugin to version 1.4.6 or later to patch the XSS vulnerability.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $1,376.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-9411 — 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-2015-9411 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