CVE-2026-15104
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 BetterDocs – AI Documentation, Knowledge Base, Docs, Wikis, FAQ with Chatbot plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to generic SQL Injection via the 'lang' parameter in all versions up to, and including, 4.6.0 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 custom-level access and above, to append additional SQL queries into already existing queries that can be used to extract sensitive information from the database. Exploitation requires a supported multilingual plugin (WPML, Polylang, qTranslate, Weglot, or TranslatePress) to be active on the site, as the vulnerable code path is gated by Helper::is_multilingual_active().
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 BetterDocs WordPress plugin versions up to 4.6.0 contain a SQL injection vulnerability in the 'lang' parameter. The plugin fails to properly escape user input and lacks prepared statements when handling the language parameter in SQL queries, allowing authenticated attackers with custom-level access or higher to inject arbitrary SQL. Exploitation requires a supported multilingual plugin (WPML, Polylang, qTranslate, Weglot, or TranslatePress) to be active, as the vulnerable code path is gated by Helper::is_multilingual_active().
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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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.
-
Check BetterDocs plugin versionIn WordPress admin, go to Plugins > BetterDocs and note the version number, or inspect the plugin main file header for the 'Version' fieldAffected if Version is 4.6.0 or lower
-
Identify active multilingual pluginsIn WordPress admin, review the list of active plugins for any of these: WPML, Polylang, qTranslate, Weglot, or TranslatePress. Alternatively, query the wp_options table for active_pluginsAffected if One or more of these multilingual plugins are active and enabled
You are affected if BetterDocs version is 4.6.0 or lower AND a multilingual plugin (WPML, Polylang, qTranslate, Weglot, or TranslatePress) is active in your WordPress environment.
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 BetterDocs plugin to a version beyond 4.6.0 which contains the patched code with proper SQL escaping and prepared statements. As a temporary workaround, consider disabling multilingual plugins if not required, though the primary remediation is the plugin update.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-15104 — 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-2026-15104 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