PodsWordPress extension · Podsfoundation
CVE-2023-6967
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 Pods – Custom Content Types and Fields plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to SQL Injection via shortcode in all versions up to, and including, 3.0.10 (with the exception of 2.7.31.2, 2.8.23.2, 2.9.19.2) 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 or higher, to append additional SQL queries into already existing queries that can be used to extract sensitive information from the database.
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 confidenceSQL injection vulnerability in the Pods WordPress plugin allows authenticated users with contributor-level access or higher to inject malicious SQL via unsanitized shortcode parameters. Insufficient input escaping combined with lack of prepared statements in the SQL query enables attackers to append arbitrary SQL queries and extract sensitive database information.
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
PodsWordPress extension
< 2.7.31.2>= 2.8, < 2.8.23.2>= 2.9, < 2.9.19.2>= 3.0.0, < 3.0.10.2CVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 Pods plugin is installedIn WordPress admin, go to Plugins > Installed Plugins and look for 'Pods - Content, Custom Fields and Settings'. Note the installed version number displayed.Affected if Plugin is present and version is unpatched (less than 2.7.31.2, 2.8.23.2, 2.9.19.2, or 3.0.10.2)
-
Identify installed version against affected rangesCompare your installed Pods version to these unaffected minimums: 2.7.31.2, 2.8.23.2, 2.9.19.2, or 3.0.10.2. Any version below these thresholds in their respective branches is vulnerable.Affected if Installed version is less than 2.7.31.2, or between 2.8.0 and 2.8.23.1, or between 2.9.0 and 2.9.19.1, or between 3.0.0 and 3.0.10.1
-
Confirm shortcode usage in contentSearch WordPress posts, pages, or custom post types for the presence of shortcode tags such as [pods], [pods_field], [pods_form], or other Pods shortcodes. Use WordPress admin search or query the wp_posts table for '[pods' patterns.Affected if Any Pods shortcodes are present in published content and the plugin version is vulnerable
-
Check for contributor-level or higher user accountsIn WordPress admin, go to Users > All Users and review roles. Contributor, Author, Editor, and Administrator roles all have the required access level to exploit this flaw.Affected if At least one user account with Contributor, Author, Editor, or Administrator role exists on the site
Your environment is affected if the Pods plugin version is below the patched thresholds AND any Pods shortcodes are in use on the site with users having contributor-level access or higher.
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.
dbcve · scoped2.7.31.22.8.23.22.9.19.2
Update the Pods plugin to version 3.0.11 or later, or apply the patched versions (2.7.31.2, 2.8.23.2, or 2.9.19.2). Until patched, restrict shortcode usage permissions and monitor for suspicious database activity.
Upgrade to 2.7.31.2, 2.8.23.2, 2.9.19.2, or 3.0.10.2 (or later) depending on your major version branch
- 1. Identify the currently installed Pods plugin version from WordPress admin > Plugins
- 2. Determine which version range your current installation falls into (< 2.7.31.2, >= 2.8 and < 2.8.23.2, >= 2.9 and < 2.9.19.2, or >= 3.0.0 and < 3.0.10.2)
- 3. Navigate to Plugins > Add New > Upload Plugin (or update via WordPress updates if available)
- 4. Download the appropriate fixed version from the WordPress plugin repository: wordpress.org/plugins/pods/
- 5. If uploading manually, upload the zip file and activate the plugin
- 6. Verify the new version is active and test that custom content types still function correctly
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Pods
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $1,936.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-6967 — 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-2023-6967 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