CVE-2026-22433
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 · uneditedImproper Control of Filename for Include/Require Statement in PHP Program ('PHP Remote File Inclusion') vulnerability in AncoraThemes CloudMe cloudme allows PHP Local File Inclusion.This issue affects CloudMe: from n/a through <= 1.2.2.
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 · moderate confidenceA PHP Local File Inclusion vulnerability exists in AncoraThemes CloudMe (versions up to 1.2.2) where user-supplied input is improperly validated before being used in include/require statements. This allows attackers to include arbitrary local PHP files, potentially leading to remote code execution if they can place malicious files on the server or access sensitive configuration files.
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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/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 CloudMe installation and versionLocate the CloudMe theme/plugin files in the web root (commonly in /wp-content/themes/ or /wp-content/plugins/) and check the main PHP file (usually style.css, index.php, or main plugin file) for the version number in the header comments or a version constant.Affected if The installed version is 1.2.2 or any earlier version.
-
Identify PHP files using include/require with dynamic inputSearch the CloudMe source code for patterns like 'include($_' or 'require($_' or similar constructions where user-supplied superglobal arrays are used directly in include/require/require_once statements. Use grep or a code search tool across PHP files in the CloudMe directory.Affected if Any include or require statement directly uses $_GET, $_POST, $_REQUEST, or similar user input without validation.
-
Check for unsafe file inclusion functionsExamine the identified include/require code paths to see if the user input is sanitized or allowlisted before use. Look for functions like basename(), pathinfo(), or explicit whitelist checks.Affected if User-controlled input reaches include/require without proper validation or allowlist filtering.
-
Inspect PHP configurationCheck php.ini or use phpinfo() to verify the allow_url_include setting. Also check if open_basedir restrictions are in place.Affected if allow_url_include is enabled (this makes the impact worse, though the CVE is primarily LFI), or no open_basedir restrictions exist to limit file access.
You are affected if CloudMe version 1.2.2 or earlier is installed AND the codebase contains include/require statements using unsanitized user 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 dataImplement strict input validation using an allowlist approach for file paths, avoid using user input directly in include/require statements, and consider disabling allow_url_include in PHP configuration.
- Consultation2.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-22433 — 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-2026-22433 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