CVE-2026-6808
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 Pricing Tables for WP plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Reflected Cross-Site Scripting via the 'page' parameter in all versions up to, and including, 1.1.0. 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 an administrator 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 Pricing Tables for WP WordPress plugin is vulnerable to reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) via the 'page' HTTP parameter due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. An unauthenticated attacker can inject arbitrary JavaScript by tricking an administrator into clicking a malicious link containing the crafted 'page' parameter.
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.
-
Verify plugin installationAccess WordPress admin dashboard, navigate to Plugins > Installed Plugins, and search for 'Pricing Tables for WP' or inspect the wp-content/plugins directory for a pricing-tables-for-wp folderAffected if The plugin is installed and active on the WordPress site
-
Confirm installed versionIn the Plugins list, locate the 'Pricing Tables for WP' entry and note the version number displayed under the plugin name, or open the main plugin PHP file and read the 'Version' header in the plugin comment blockAffected if The plugin version matches the affected range (if known) or is running unpatched code
-
Identify vulnerable code patternLocate the plugin's main PHP file and search for code handling the 'page' parameter (e.g., $_GET['page'], $_REQUEST['page']) and verify if sanitize_text_field() or esc_attr()/esc_html() is applied before outputAffected if The 'page' parameter is processed and output without proper sanitization and escaping functions
-
Test reflected XSS conditionWith administrator privileges, access a URL with a crafted 'page' parameter such as ?page=<script>alert(1)</script> on any admin page loading the plugin, then inspect the page source for the unescaped script tagAffected if The injected script executes or appears unescaped in the page source
A user is affected if the Pricing Tables for WP plugin is installed and the 'page' parameter is not sanitized/escaped before output, allowing script injection via malicious URLs.
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 the plugin to a patched version once available. Until then, implement input sanitization using sanitize_text_field() and output escaping with esc_attr() or esc_html() on the 'page' parameter.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,424.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-6808 — 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-2026-6808 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