CVE-2026-6704
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 Blog Settings plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Reflected Cross-Site Scripting via the 'page' parameter in all versions up to, and including, 1.0. This is due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that execute if they can successfully trick a user into performing an action such as clicking on a 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 Blog Settings WordPress plugin fails to properly sanitize the 'page' parameter before reflecting it in the HTML output, allowing unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary JavaScript code via a crafted URL. Successful exploitation requires tricking a user into clicking a malicious link, which executes the injected script in the victim's browser session.
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.
-
Confirm Blog Settings plugin is installedCheck the WordPress plugin directory for a plugin named 'blog-settings' or similar, and read the main plugin file header to obtain the installed version numberAffected if The plugin is present and the version falls within any affected range (compare your installed version to the affected ranges if known)
-
Identify the vulnerable code locationSearch plugin source files for code that handles the 'page' parameter and reflects it in HTML output without sanitization - look for $_GET['page'] or similar superglobal usage directly in template or echo statementsAffected if Code exists that takes the 'page' parameter and outputs it directly to HTML without htmlspecialchars() or esc_html() sanitization
-
Test parameter reflection in admin pagesNavigate to any admin page of the Blog Settings plugin and observe if the 'page' parameter value appears in the HTML source - use a browser's developer tools or view-source to inspect the rendered pageAffected if The 'page' parameter value is reflected in the HTML output without being escaped or sanitized
-
Verify XSS payload execution potentialCraft a URL with a test XSS payload in the page parameter (such as ?page=<script>alert(1)</script>) and access it while logged in as an administrator; inspect whether the script tag is rendered literally or executedAffected if The injected script tag or event handler appears unescaped in the page source, indicating the vulnerability is present and exploitable
You are affected if the Blog Settings plugin is installed, the 'page' parameter is reflected in HTML without sanitization, and a crafted URL can cause script execution in a user's browser.
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 to a patched version of the plugin if available; otherwise, implement proper input validation and output escaping for the 'page' parameter in the affected code.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-6704 — 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-2026-6704 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