Spiffy CalendarWordPress extension · Sunnythemes
CVE-2017-9420
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 the Spiffy Calendar plugin before 3.3.0 for WordPress allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary JavaScript via the yr parameter.
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 confidenceReflected cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the Spiffy Calendar WordPress plugin versions prior to 3.3.0 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary JavaScript via the unprotected 'yr' (year) parameter in HTTP requests.
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
Spiffy CalendarWordPress extension
= 1.0.0= 1.0.1= 1.0.2a= 1.0.3= 1.1.0= 1.1.1= 1.1.2= 1.1.3= 1.1.4= 1.1.5= 1.1.6= 1.1.7CVSS 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:3.0/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 Spiffy Calendar plugin is installedCheck your WordPress site's wp-content/plugins/ directory for a folder named 'spiffy-calendar' or 'spiffy-calendar-plugin', or view the installed plugins list in the WordPress admin dashboard under PluginsAffected if The plugin folder exists in wp-content/plugins/ or appears in the WordPress admin plugins list
-
Identify the installed plugin versionOpen the main plugin PHP file (usually spiffy-calendar.php or similar in the plugin folder) and look for a version comment or constant at the top of the file, or check the version displayed in the WordPress admin plugins pageAffected if The version number displayed matches any of the following: 1.0.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.2a, 1.0.3, 1.1.0, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.1.5, 1.1.6, or 1.1.7
-
Test for XSS vulnerability in the yr parameterVisit any page on your site that displays the calendar and append ?yr=<script>alert(1)</script> to the URL, for example: yoursite.com/calendar-page?yr=%3Cscript%3Ealert(1)%3C/script%3EAffected if The JavaScript alert executes or the script tag appears in the page source without encoding, indicating the yr parameter is not sanitized
You are affected if the Spiffy Calendar plugin is installed and its version is 1.0.0 through 1.1.7 and the yr parameter reflects unsanitized input.
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 dataUpdate Spiffy Calendar plugin to version 3.3.0 or later, which includes proper input validation/sanitization for the yr parameter. If immediate update is not possible, consider temporarily disabling the plugin or implementing WAF rules to block XSS payloads in that parameter.
Fix this in Spiffy Calendar
Scoped from the published advisory
- 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-2017-9420 — 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-2017-9420 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