WordPress Coding Standards (WordPressCS) contains an arbitrary code execution vulnerability
WordPress Coding Standards is a set of PHP_CodeSniffer rules (sniffs) that enforce WordPress coding conventions. From 0.14.1 until 3.4.1, the WordPress.WP.EnqueuedResourceParameters sniff (active in the WordPress and WordPress-Extra rulesets) reconstructed the $ver argument passed to functions such as wp_enqueue_script() and ran it through eval() inside its is_falsy() method, so a maliciously crafted argument such as 'system'('id') would execute during a scan; as a result, running PHPCS with WordPressCS over untrusted PHP (for example a CI pipeline that lints pull requests, or a developer reviewing third-party code) could lead to arbitrary command execution on the scanning host. The WordPress-Core and WordPress-Docs rulesets are not affected. This issue is fixed in version 3.4.1.
- Published
- Jul 28, 2026
- Updated
- Sep 9, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.2% · 15th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-95
Sign in to follow · You’ll be notified if a followed record enters KEV, gets an exploit or is updated.
Report tools
Action score
34
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 34 / 40 · 8.6 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.2%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- none
- Automatable
- no
- Technical impact
- total
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- —
- CNA · GitHub_M
- 8.6
- NVD has not scored this yet; the score shown is the CNA’s.
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Affected systems
—
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (GitHub_M). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
WordPress WordPress-Coding-Standards
- >= 0.14.1, < 3.4.1affected
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Packagist | wp-coding-standards/wpcs | from 0.14.1 · before 3.4.1 | 3.4.1 |
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| WordPress WordPress-Coding-Standards | 3.4.1 · description | Vendor (CNA) |
| Packagist:wp-coding-standards/wpcs | 3.4.1 | Package registry (OSV) |
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
FIRST EPSS daily score; only changes of 0.01 or more are recorded (step chart).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
The product’s vendor appears in a public program. Matched by name; verify the scope text in the program.
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Someone with local access to the system can trigger it.
- No account or password is required.
- A user must open a link or visit a page.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- high · the service can be disrupted
Impact can extend beyond the vulnerable component (scope changes).
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- High
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-95 · Improper Neutralization of Directives in Dynamically Evaluated Code ('Eval Injection')CVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
nvd-secondary
Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Noroxi analysis
No Noroxi analysis for this record yet
We don't hand-write analysis for all 385,000+ vulnerabilities; that wouldn't be honest. For notable, high-impact vulnerabilities our team writes the mechanism, detection and remediation steps.
We use this product, ask for helpChange log
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
- github.com/WordPress/WordPress-Coding-Standards/commit/a29048d0bbef5cf25d42349c74e4072d3cbc8325
- github.com/WordPress/WordPress-Coding-Standards/pull/2771
- github.com/WordPress/WordPress-Coding-Standards/releases/tag/3.4.1
- github.com/WordPress/WordPress-Coding-Standards/security/advisories/GHSA-3pwp-g2mj-5p3v
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.