medium · CVSS v3 4.3

CVE-2026-118188

The PublishPress Revisions plugin (v<4.3.1) fails to enforce read permissions when comparing revisions, exposing private post content to any

Overview

The PublishPress Revisions plugin (v<4.3.1) fails to enforce read permissions when comparing revisions, exposing private post content to any authenticated user. This flaw allows even low‑privilege subscribers to view titles, content, and excerpts of other users' private, draft, pending, scheduled, or trashed posts. The vulnerability can lead to information disclosure across the site.

Description

The PublishPress Revisions: Duplicate Posts, Submit, Approve and Schedule Content Changes WordPress plugin before 4.3.1 does not verify that a user is permitted to read a given post before returning its content through its revision-comparison feature, allowing any authenticated user, including a Subscriber, to read the title, content and excerpt of any other user's private, draft, pending, scheduled or trashed post.

Impact

Confidentiality: private post data is exposed. Integrity: no direct impact. Availability: no impact. Defenders: site administrators and content editors must be aware that any authenticated user can read private content via revision comparison.

Remediation

Update PublishPress Revisions to version 4.3.1 or later. If an update is not possible, disable the revision comparison feature or restrict access to the 'revision-comparison' endpoint via role‑based access control. Verify that the plugin enforces read permissions before returning content.

Risk context

Medium severity; no EPSS data available. While not high risk, the vulnerability can expose sensitive content, so prompt patching is recommended.

Affected products

  • PublishPress Revisions
  • WordPress

Scores

Severity
medium
CVSS v2
4
CVSS v3
4.3
CVSS v4
—
EPSS
—

information-disclosure wordpress plugin auth-bypass content-security revision-comparison

← All CVEs

Related CVEs

medium

CVE-2026-114427

The GutenKit WordPress plugin before 2.5.5 does not properly sanitize custom CSS saved against a post before printing it inside an inline style block on the published page, allowing users with the Author role and above to break out of the style element and store JavaScript that executes in the browser of any visitor who views the post. Exploitation affects sites running WordPress below 7.0.

View analysis

medium

CVE-2026-120659

The Redirection for Contact Form 7 plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass in all versions up to, and including, 3.2.14 This is due to the plugin not properly verifying that a user is authorized to perform an action. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to write arbitrary post meta values to newly created lead posts and copy arbitrary server-side files with allowed MIME-type extensions into the plugin's uploads directory. Exploitation requires a published Contact Form 7 form configured with the Save Entry (Save Lead) action enabled on the target site.

View analysis

medium

CVE-2026-123287

In JetBrains Datalore before 2026.4 private notebook files could be downloaded without authentication via published interactive reports

View analysis

medium

CVE-2026-84164

The HTML report that plist-to-html, CodeChecker parse --export html and CodeChecker cmd diff --output html generate puts the report message, the checker name and the source file path into a script block through json.dumps. json.dumps does not escape the less-than character, so a closing script tag in any of those three fields ends the script element and what follows is parsed as HTML. The input author is whoever controls the analysed tree or a third-party result file that report-converter ingests, or who holds PRODUCT_STORE in the cmd diff flow. The viewer is somebody else: docs/jenkins_gerrit_integration.md documents writing the report into Jenkins userContent and posting its URL into a Gerrit review. One caveat worth stating up front is that Jenkins serves userContent under a restrictive CSP that would block an inline handler, so that destination is probably safe as configured. The generated report sets no CSP of its own, so the impact lands wherever it is published without one.

View analysis