FKIE_CVE-2026-4804

Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2026-07-03 09:16 - Updated: 2026-07-06 18:02
Severity
6.4 (Medium) - CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
Summary
The Zakra theme for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via post meta values in all versions up to, and including, 4.2.0. This is due to the theme registering three post meta fields (zakra_menu_item_color, zakra_menu_item_hover_color, and zakra_menu_item_active_color) with 'show_in_rest' => true and 'auth_callback' => '__return_true', but without any sanitize_callback parameter in the register_post_meta() calls. While the classic editor save path applies sanitize_hex_color() sanitization, the REST API path completely bypasses this protection. The unsanitized meta values are then retrieved via get_post_meta() and concatenated directly into CSS strings that are output through wp_add_inline_style() without any escaping. 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 the injected page.
References
security@wordfence.comhttps://themes.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?reponame=&new=330192%40zakra%2F4.2.1&old=297420%40zakra%2F4.2.0#file39
security@wordfence.comhttps://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/bbda67a3-0413-4d8e-8157-84c9c87b8695?source=cve
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "affectedData": [
        {
          "defaultStatus": "unaffected",
          "product": "Zakra",
          "vendor": "themegrill",
          "versions": [
            {
              "lessThanOrEqual": "4.2.0",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "source": "security@wordfence.com"
    }
  ],
  "cveTags": [],
  "descriptions": [
    {
      "lang": "en",
      "value": "The Zakra theme for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via post meta values in all versions up to, and including, 4.2.0. This is due to the theme registering three post meta fields (zakra_menu_item_color, zakra_menu_item_hover_color, and zakra_menu_item_active_color) with \u0027show_in_rest\u0027 =\u003e true and \u0027auth_callback\u0027 =\u003e \u0027__return_true\u0027, but without any sanitize_callback parameter in the register_post_meta() calls. While the classic editor save path applies sanitize_hex_color() sanitization, the REST API path completely bypasses this protection. The unsanitized meta values are then retrieved via get_post_meta() and concatenated directly into CSS strings that are output through wp_add_inline_style() without any escaping. 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 the injected page."
    }
  ],
  "id": "CVE-2026-4804",
  "lastModified": "2026-07-06T18:02:49.450",
  "metrics": {
    "cvssMetricV31": [
      {
        "cvssData": {
          "attackComplexity": "LOW",
          "attackVector": "NETWORK",
          "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
          "baseScore": 6.4,
          "baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
          "confidentialityImpact": "LOW",
          "integrityImpact": "LOW",
          "privilegesRequired": "LOW",
          "scope": "CHANGED",
          "userInteraction": "NONE",
          "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
          "version": "3.1"
        },
        "exploitabilityScore": 3.1,
        "impactScore": 2.7,
        "source": "security@wordfence.com",
        "type": "Secondary"
      }
    ],
    "ssvcV203": [
      {
        "source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
        "ssvcData": {
          "id": "CVE-2026-4804",
          "options": [
            {
              "exploitation": "none"
            },
            {
              "automatable": "no"
            },
            {
              "technicalImpact": "partial"
            }
          ],
          "role": "CISA Coordinator",
          "timestamp": "2026-07-06T16:25:36.489784Z",
          "version": "2.0.3"
        }
      }
    ]
  },
  "published": "2026-07-03T09:16:37.520",
  "references": [
    {
      "source": "security@wordfence.com",
      "url": "https://themes.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?reponame=\u0026new=330192%40zakra%2F4.2.1\u0026old=297420%40zakra%2F4.2.0#file39"
    },
    {
      "source": "security@wordfence.com",
      "url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/bbda67a3-0413-4d8e-8157-84c9c87b8695?source=cve"
    }
  ],
  "sourceIdentifier": "security@wordfence.com",
  "vulnStatus": "Deferred",
  "weaknesses": [
    {
      "description": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "CWE-79"
        }
      ],
      "source": "security@wordfence.com",
      "type": "Secondary"
    }
  ]
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.





Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.



Related by attack behaviour

Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.