CVE-2026-7515
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 BetterDocs Pro plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Local File Inclusion in versions up to, and including, 3.8.0 via the `doc_style` parameter. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to include and execute arbitrary .php files on the server, allowing the execution of any PHP code in those files. This can be used to bypass access controls, obtain sensitive data, or achieve code execution in cases where .php file types can be uploaded and included.
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 BetterDocs Pro WordPress plugin versions up to 3.8.0 contain a Local File Inclusion vulnerability in the `doc_style` parameter. Attackers can exploit this to include arbitrary .php files from the server, enabling remote code execution without authentication. This is a critical path traversal issue that allows complete bypass of access controls.
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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.
-
Identify if BetterDocs Pro is installedIn WordPress admin, go to Plugins > Installed Plugins and look for BetterDocs Pro. Alternatively, check the /wp-content/plugins/ directory for a betterdocs-pro folder.Affected if The plugin is present in the WordPress installation.
-
Determine the installed versionIn the WordPress plugins list, view the plugin details to see the version number. Alternatively, check the main plugin file (e.g., /wp-content/plugins/betterdocs-pro/betterdocs-pro.php) for the version constant.Affected if The version is 3.8.0 or lower.
-
Verify the doc_style parameter is accessibleCheck if the WordPress site exposes any endpoint that accepts a 'doc_style' parameter (common in BetterDocs shortcodes or AJAX handlers). Test a request to the site with doc_style=../../../../etc/passwd or similar path traversal to see if the parameter is processed.Affected if The doc_style parameter is accepted and processed by the application without sanitization.
-
Check for successful exploitation indicatorsReview web server access logs for requests containing 'doc_style' with path traversal sequences (../). Also check for any new or unexpected .php files in writable directories.Affected if Path traversal attempts in doc_style parameter appear in logs, or unexpected .php files exist on the server.
A user is affected if BetterDocs Pro version 3.8.0 or lower is installed AND the doc_style parameter is accessible/exposed on their WordPress site.
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 BetterDocs Pro to the latest version immediately. If no patched version is available, disable the plugin or implement a WAF rule to block path traversal attempts in the doc_style parameter.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,968.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-7515 — 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-2026-7515 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