CVE-2026-3875
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 plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the 'betterdocs_feedback_form' shortcode in all versions up to, and including, 4.3.8. This is due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping on user supplied shortcode attributes. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with contributor level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page.
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 4.3.8 contains a stored XSS vulnerability in the 'betterdocs_feedback_form' shortcode due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping on user-supplied shortcode attributes. Authenticated attackers with contributor-level access or higher can inject arbitrary JavaScript that executes whenever users access affected pages.
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
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/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.
-
Identify if BetterDocs plugin is installedLog into the WordPress admin dashboard and navigate to Plugins > Installed Plugins. Look for 'BetterDocs' in the list of active plugins.Affected if BetterDocs is not found in the plugin list, then this CVE does not apply.
-
Determine the installed BetterDocs versionIn the Plugins list, find BetterDocs and note the version number displayed under the plugin name. Alternatively, open the main plugin file (betterdocs.php) and check the 'Version' header in the plugin comments.Affected if The installed version is 4.3.8 or earlier.
-
Check if the feedback_form shortcode is in useSearch your WordPress posts, pages, and custom post types for the string '[betterdocs_feedback_form' to see if the shortcode is actively used on any published content.Affected if The shortcode [betterdocs_feedback_form] is present in any published content on the site.
-
Verify user roles with contributor-level access or higherIn WordPress admin, go to Users > All Users and review the role column. Identify any users assigned the Contributor, Author, Editor, or Administrator roles.Affected if There are users with Contributor, Author, or higher roles (excluding only Subscriber and below).
A user is affected if BetterDocs version 4.3.8 or earlier is installed AND the betterdocs_feedback_form shortcode is in use on the site AND there exists at least one user with Contributor-level access or higher who could inject the malicious shortcode attribute.
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 BetterDocs to version 4.3.9 or later; if immediate update is not possible, restrict contributor-level user permissions or disable the feedback_form shortcode until the patch can be applied.
- 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-2026-3875 — 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-2026-3875 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