CVE-2015-9518
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 Easy Digital Downloads (EDD) PDF Invoices extension for WordPress, as used with EDD 1.8.x before 1.8.7, 1.9.x before 1.9.10, 2.0.x before 2.0.5, 2.1.x before 2.1.11, 2.2.x before 2.2.9, and 2.3.x before 2.3.7, has XSS because add_query_arg is misused.
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 confidenceThe Easy Digital Downloads (EDD) PDF Invoices extension for WordPress contains a reflected Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability caused by misuse of the add_query_arg() function, which fails to properly escape user-controlled input when generating URLs.
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>= 1.8, < 1.8.7>= 1.9, < 1.9.10>= 2.0, < 2.0.5>= 2.1, < 2.1.11>= 2.2, < 2.2.9>= 2.3, < 2.3.7all versionsCVSS 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.
-
Verify PDF Invoices extension is installedCheck the WordPress plugins directory for the 'easy-digital-downloads-pdf-invoices' or 'EDD PDF Invoices' plugin folder, or list active plugins via WP-CLI: wp plugin list --status=active --format=jsonAffected if The PDF Invoices extension is present and active
-
Determine installed EDD versionCheck the main Easy Digital Downloads plugin file header for Version, or run: grep -i "Version:" /path/to/wp-content/plugins/easy-digital-downloads/edd.phpAffected if The installed EDD version falls within any of the vulnerable ranges: >= 1.8 and < 1.8.7, >= 1.9 and < 1.9.10, >= 2.0 and < 2.0.5, >= 2.1 and < 2.1.11, >= 2.2 and < 2.2.9, >= 2.3 and < 2.3.7
-
Inspect for vulnerable add_query_arg usageSearch the PDF Invoices plugin code for add_query_arg calls that do not use esc_url or esc_attr around the output: grep -r "add_query_arg" /path/to/wp-content/plugins/easy-digital-downloads-pdf-invoices/Affected if The code contains add_query_arg() calls without proper escaping functions on the returned value
-
Check for reflected URL parameters in invoicesGenerate a test invoice URL and inspect the query string parameters for unsanitized reflection: review the browser address bar and any invoice download links generated by the pluginAffected if URL parameters from user input appear reflected in the page without encoding
If the PDF Invoices extension is installed and the EDD version is within any vulnerable range, or if add_query_arg is used without escaping, the environment is likely affected by this reflected XSS vulnerability.
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 data1.8.71.9.102.0.5
Update the EDD PDF Invoices extension to a patched version (1.8.7, 1.9.10, 2.0.5, 2.1.11, 2.2.9, 2.3.7 or later) or the latest available version.
- Consultation2.0 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 $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-9518 — 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-2015-9518 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