dbcve.org
Cross-site Scripting (XSS)Weakness · CWE-79

CVE-2026-8842

MEDIUM · 6.4 CVSS v3.1 Published 2026-05-27
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
70/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable Zero-click

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 · unedited
The Google+ Link Name plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the 'gplusnamelink' shortcode in versions up to, and including, 1.0. This is due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping on user supplied attributes ('id' and 'name') in the gplusnamelink_generate() function, which are concatenated directly into the rendered HTML without calling esc_attr() or esc_html(). This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with contributor-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page.

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 confidence

The Google+ Link Name WordPress plugin fails to sanitize and escape the 'id' and 'name' attributes supplied to the gplusnamelink shortcode. These values are passed directly to the gplusnamelink_generate() function and concatenated into HTML output without esc_attr() or esc_html(), allowing stored XSS.

MitigationUpdate to a patched version if available; otherwise remove or disable the plugin. Audit existing posts/pages using the shortcode for malicious content and restrict contributor-level permissions until remediated.

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
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Verify Google+ Link Name plugin is installed
    Check the WordPress plugin directory (wp-content/plugins/) for a folder named 'google-plus-link-name', 'gplusnamelink', or similar. Alternatively, log into WP Admin and navigate to Plugins > Instored Plugins to look for 'Google+ Link Name' or 'Google+ Link Name WordPress plugin'.
    Affected if The plugin appears in the installed plugins list
  2. Determine the installed plugin version
    In WP Admin, go to Plugins > Installed Plugins and click on the plugin name to view its details, or open the main plugin PHP file (usually gplusnamelink.php or similar in the plugin folder) and look for a 'Version:' comment or defined constant.
    Affected if The version number is lower than any patched version released after the CVE publication date
  3. Identify use of the vulnerable shortcode
    Search the WordPress database for posts/pages containing the shortcode [gplusnamelink]. You can use phpMyAdmin to query wp_posts where post_content LIKE '%[gplusnamelink%' OR search WP Admin > Posts > All Posts and Pages > Bulk Actions > Find text for pages containing this shortcode.
    Affected if Content containing [gplusnamelink] shortcode is found in the database
  4. Inspect the shortcode handler for missing escaping
    Open the main plugin PHP file and locate the gplusnamelink_generate() function. Examine how the 'id' and 'name' attributes from the shortcode are handled. Look for whether esc_attr() or esc_html() is called on these attributes before they are concatenated into HTML output.
    Affected if The code shows the 'id' and 'name' attributes are output directly into HTML without esc_attr() or esc_html() escaping

A user is affected if the Google+ Link Name plugin is installed, contains the vulnerable shortcode handler lacking output escaping, and has content using the [gplusnamelink] shortcode with user-controlled 'id' or 'name' attributes.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Update to a patched version if available; otherwise remove or disable the plugin. Audit existing posts/pages using the shortcode for malicious content and restrict contributor-level permissions until remediated.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation2.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
9.0 hours of engineering $1,570
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,512.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-8842 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2026-8842 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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