CVE-2026-11392
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 WP Hotel Booking plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Reflected Cross-Site Scripting via the 'check_in_date' and 'check_out_date' parameters in all versions up to, and including, 2.3.1 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that execute if they can successfully trick a user into performing an action such as clicking on a link.
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 WP Hotel Booking WordPress plugin (versions up to 2.3.1) is vulnerable to reflected Cross-Site Scripting via the 'check_in_date' and 'check_out_date' parameters. These parameters are not sanitized on input or escaped on output, allowing unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary JavaScript through malicious URLs that, when clicked by a victim, execute in their browser.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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.
-
Confirm WP Hotel Booking plugin is installedIn WordPress admin, go to Plugins > Installed Plugins and look for 'WP Hotel Booking' or check the plugin files in wp-content/plugins/Affected if The plugin is present and active in the WordPress installation
-
Identify installed plugin versionCheck the plugin's main PHP file header (usually wp-content/plugins/wp-hotel-booking/wp-hotel-booking.php) for the 'Version' comment, or view the plugin details in WordPress admin plugins listAffected if The version is 2.3.1 or lower
-
Locate pages using check_in_date and check_out_date parametersSearch plugin source code for 'check_in_date' and 'check_out_date' to identify which template or handler processes these parameters (typically in search/booking templates)Affected if The parameters are processed by the plugin without sanitization
-
Verify lack of input sanitization on vulnerable parametersExamine the PHP code handling check_in_date and check_out_date - look for absence of sanitize_text_field, esc_attr, or esc_html on these inputs when processed and outputAffected if The code does NOT use sanitize_text_field on input AND esc_attr/esc_html on output for these parameters
You are affected if WP Hotel Booking plugin version 2.3.1 or lower is installed and the booking search functionality that uses check_in_date/check_out_date parameters is accessible on your site.
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 the plugin to a version beyond 2.3.1 when available, or implement proper input sanitization (sanitize_text_field) and output escaping (esc_attr/esc_html) on the check_in_date and check_out_date parameters.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-11392 — 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-2026-11392 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