CVE-2026-4120
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 Info Cards – Add Text and Media in Card Layouts plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the 'btnUrl' parameter within the Info Cards block in all versions up to, and including, 2.0.7. This is due to insufficient input validation on URL schemes, specifically the lack of javascript: protocol filtering. The block's render.php passes all attributes as JSON to the frontend via a data-attributes HTML attribute using esc_attr(wp_json_encode()), which prevents HTML attribute injection but does not validate URL protocols within the JSON data. The client-side view.js then renders the btnUrl value directly as an href attribute on anchor elements without any protocol sanitization. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and above, to inject javascript: URLs that execute arbitrary web scripts when a user clicks the rendered button 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 Info Cards plugin fails to sanitize URL protocols in the btnUrl parameter. Server-side render.php uses esc_attr(wp_json_encode()) which prevents HTML injection but doesn't filter dangerous URL schemes. Client-side view.js then renders btnUrl directly as an href without validating protocols, allowing javascript: URLs that execute arbitrary scripts on click.
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 the Info Cards plugin versionCheck the plugin's main PHP file or WordPress plugin directory for the version number in the plugin header commentAffected if The installed version is earlier than 2.0.8
-
Locate render.php in the pluginFind the render.php file within the Info Cards plugin directory and examine how it handles the btnUrl parameterAffected if render.php passes btnUrl through wp_json_encode() without protocol filtering
-
Examine view.js client-side codeInspect the view.js file to confirm it renders btnUrl directly as an href attribute without validating the URL protocolAffected if view.js renders btnUrl without sanitizing dangerous protocols like javascript:
-
Test for vulnerable parameter usageCheck if btnUrl parameter accepts user-supplied input in the plugin's shortcode or widget configurationAffected if btnUrl accepts arbitrary input and is rendered client-side without protocol validation
A user is affected if they are running an Info Cards plugin version earlier than 2.0.8 and have the ability to configure a btnUrl value that could be set to a javascript: URL scheme.
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 dataUpgrade to version 2.0.8 or later which should implement proper URL protocol filtering (whitelist allowed schemes like http/https).
- Consultation2.0 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 $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-4120 — 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-2026-4120 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