CVE-2026-8627
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 Correct Prices plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Reflected Cross-Site Scripting via the $_SERVER['PHP_SELF'] variable in versions up to and including 1.0. This is due to the correct_prices_page() function echoing $_SERVER['PHP_SELF'] into a form's action attribute without any input sanitization or output escaping (such as esc_url() or esc_attr()). Because PHP_SELF reflects attacker-controlled path-info appended to the script URL, an attacker can break out of the attribute and inject arbitrary markup. 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 specially crafted 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 Correct Prices WordPress plugin versions up to 1.0 contain a reflected XSS vulnerability in the correct_prices_page() function where $_SERVER['PHP_SELF'] is output directly into a form's action attribute without sanitization. Since PHP_SELF reflects the request URI path, attackers can inject malicious markup by crafting URLs with script injection in the path.
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 plugin installationNavigate to WordPress admin > Plugins and look for 'The Correct Prices' plugin, or check the plugin directory /wp-content/plugins/ for a folder named 'correct-prices' or similarAffected if plugin is not installed, then not affected
-
Check plugin versionIn WordPress admin > Plugins, find The Correct Prices plugin and check the version number displayedAffected if version is higher than 1.0, then not affected; versions 1.0 and below are potentially affected
-
Locate vulnerable function fileIn the plugin directory, find the main plugin file (often correct-prices.php or similar) and locate the correct_prices_page() functionAffected if function does not exist, then not affected
-
Check for vulnerable $_SERVER['PHP_SELF'] usageWithin the correct_prices_page() function, search for any instance where $_SERVER['PHP_SELF'] is output directly into an HTML attribute (such as action="...") without esc_attr() or esc_url() wrappingAffected if $_SERVER['PHP_SELF'] is used directly without sanitization in form action attribute, then affected
User is affected if The Correct Prices plugin version 1.0 or below is installed AND the correct_prices_page() function contains unsanitized $_SERVER['PHP_SELF'] output in a form's action attribute.
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 dataSanitize the PHP_SELF output using esc_attr() or esc_url() when building the form action attribute, or replace with a hardcoded admin URL.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 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 $1,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-8627 — 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-2026-8627 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