CVE-2026-39538
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 Mikado-Themes Mikado Core mikado-core allows PHP Local File Inclusion.This issue affects Mikado Core: from n/a through <= 1.6.
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 confidenceMikado Core WordPress theme plugin <= 1.6 contains a PHP Local File Inclusion (LFI) vulnerability due to improper control of filenames in include/require statements. An attacker could potentially include malicious PHP files from the local server, leading to code execution.
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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/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 Mikado Core plugin is installedNavigate to WordPress admin > Plugins, or inspect the /wp-content/plugins/mikado-core/ directory. Check plugin version from plugin header or version file.Affected if Plugin is present and active in WordPress installation
-
Identify include/require statements using user inputSearch PHP files in the plugin directory for patterns like 'include($_', 'require($_', 'include_once($_', 'require_once($_' followed by $_GET, $_POST, or $_REQUEST variables without sanitization.Affected if Files contain include/require statements that directly use unsanitized user-supplied input ($_GET, $_POST, $_REQUEST)
-
Inspect file path parameter handlingExamine files identified in step 2. Look for parameters being used in file paths, such as '?file=', '?path=', '?template=', or similar. Check if these parameters flow directly into include/require without basename() or realpath() validation.Affected if File path parameters from user input are used in include/require without proper path sanitization functions
-
Check for directory traversal protectionReview the code handling the file path inputs. Verify if realpath() is used to resolve the full path, or if basename() strips directory traversal sequences (..), or if a whitelist of allowed files is implemented.Affected if No realpath(), basename(), or whitelist validation is present on file path inputs before include/require
If the Mikado Core plugin is installed and contains include/require statements using unsanitized $_GET/$_POST/$_REQUEST parameters for file paths, the installation is vulnerable to LFI.
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 Mikado Core to the latest patched version. If no update is available, implement strict input validation on all file inclusion parameters and restrict file system access. Consider using a WAF rule to block directory traversal patterns.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-39538 — 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-2026-39538 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