CVE-2026-53737
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 · uneditedJuicer through 1.12.18 fails to escape remote feed API response fields before rendering them on the admin settings page. Attackers controlling the connected feed data can inject script that executes in an administrator's browser when the settings page loads.
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 confidenceJuicer plugin versions through 1.12.18 suffer from a stored XSS vulnerability where remote feed API response data is rendered on the admin settings page without proper escaping. An attacker who controls the connected feed can inject malicious JavaScript that executes when an administrator views the settings page.
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
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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 Juicer plugin installation and versionLocate the Juicer plugin directory (wp-content/plugins/juicer or similar) and check the main plugin file header for the Version field, or check the plugin row in WordPress admin plugins listAffected if Version is 1.12.18 or lower
-
Check for connected external feedsIn WordPress admin, navigate to the Juicer plugin settings page (usually under Settings or a dedicated Juicer menu item) and look for any configured feed connections, or query the wp_options table for option names containing 'juicer' and 'feed'Affected if Any external feeds are connected to the plugin
-
Verify feed data rendering on settings pageAccess the Juicer plugin admin settings page while authenticated as an administrator; inspect the page source or view the feed data displayed to confirm if API response data is rendered without visible sanitization markupAffected if Feed data appears on the settings page without HTML entity encoding (visible raw characters like < > instead of < >)
You are affected if the Juicer plugin version is 1.12.18 or lower AND external feeds are connected, as this combination allows the stored XSS to execute when you view the admin settings page.
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 output escaping (esc_html(), esc_attr(), or wp_kses()) on all feed response fields before rendering in the admin settings page. Validate and sanitize all external data before display.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-53737 — 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-2026-53737 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