Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.20% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2026
CVE-2026-2305High confidence
AddFunc Head & Footer Code <= 2.3 - Authenticated (Contributor+) Stored Cross-Site Scripting via Custom Fields
addfunc · AddFunc Head & Footer Code
6.4MediumCVSS 3.1
Scheduled
Fix not verifiedMedium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityMedium→Operational priority:Medium, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs addfunc AddFunc Head & Footer Code and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Fix not verified01
What, why and how
The AddFunc Head & Footer Code plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the `aFhfc_head_code`, `aFhfc_body_code`, and `aFhfc_footer_code` post meta values in all versions up to, and including, 2.3. This is due to the plugin outputting these meta values without any sanitization or escaping. While the plugin restricts its own metabox and save handler to administrators via `current_user_can('manage_options')`, it does not use `register_meta()` with an `auth_callback` to protect these meta keys. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts via the WordPress Custom Fields interface that execute when an administrator previews or views the post.
What
The AddFunc Head & Footer Code plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the `aFhfc_head_code`, `aFhfc_body_code`, and `aFhfc_footer_code` post meta values in all versions up to, and including, 2.3. This is due to the plugin outputting these meta values without any sanitization or escaping. While the plugin restricts its own metabox and save handler to administrators via `current_user_can('manage_options')`, it does not use `register_meta()` with an `auth_callback` to protect these meta keys. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts via the WordPress Custom Fields interface that execute when an administrator previews or views the post.
Why
Attacker-controlled content can reach a browser as executable script without sufficient output encoding or sanitisation.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
The AddFunc Head & Footer Code plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the `aFhfc_head_code`, `aFhfc_body_code`, and `aFhfc_footer_code` post meta values in all versions up to, and including, 2.3. This is due to the plugin outputting these meta values without any sanitization or escaping. While the plugin restricts its own metabox and save handler to administrators via `current_user_can('manage_options')`, it does not use `register_meta()` with an `auth_callback` to protect these meta keys. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Contributor-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts via the WordPress Custom Fields interface that execute when an administrator previews or views the post.
Why
Attacker-controlled content can reach a browser as executable script without sufficient output encoding or sanitisation.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- Low: a basic authenticated account is required
- User interaction
- None
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Changed: exploitation can affect a different security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-79 ↗
CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting'). The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SChangedScope: The attack can affect a component governed by a different security authority.CLowConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.ILowIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- No specific living-off-the-land technique is confirmed in the structured sources. Monitor normal administration tools for activity inconsistent with the affected service's baseline.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Fix not verified
- Affected
- AddFunc Head & Footer Code: ≤ 2.3
- Fixed
- No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- Action
- No verified patch reference is present in the current structured sources. Check the vendor advisory before making a change.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 10 Apr 2026 · Last source change 10 Apr 2026, 17:03 UTC · CWE-79 · Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2026-21288
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD not scheduled
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.