CVE-2026-87741 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2026-87741 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2026-87741: The ConvertPlus plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Deserialization of Untrusted Data in all versions up to, and including, 3.6.3 via the style parameter of the cp_display_preview_modal AJAX action. The vulnerability exists because the action's nonce guard is gated behind an isset() check and fails open when the cp_admin_page_nonce parameter is omitted entirely, no capability check is performed on the callback, and sanitize_text_field() — applied to the $style value before it is concatenated directly into a shortcode string evaluated by do_shortcode() — does not strip shortcode delimiters, allowing an attacker to inject a second, fully attacker-controlled [smile_modal] invocation that causes smile_modal_popup() to pass attacker-supplied base64-decoded bytes to maybe_unserialize() with no allowed_classes restriction. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above, to inject a PHP object. No known POP chain is present in the vulnerable software, which means this vulnerability has no impact unless another plugin or theme containing a POP chain is installed on the site. If a POP chain is present via an additional plugin or theme installed on the target system, it may allow the attacker to perform actions like delete arbitrary files, retrieve sensitive data, or execute code depending on the POP chain present.

CVE-2026-87741 References

External References

• https://convertpro.net
• https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/286b4dde-974d-4bb5-8a7e-57c849beaab1?source=cve

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

CAPEC Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification

• Command Line Execution through SQL Injection CAPEC-108 An attacker uses standard SQL injection methods to inject data into the command line for execution. This could be done directly through misuse of directives such as MSSQL_xp_cmdshell or indirectly through injection of data into the database that would be interpreted as shell commands. Sometime later, an unscrupulous backend application (or could be part of the functionality of the same application) fetches the injected data stored in the database and uses this data as command line arguments without performing proper validation. The malicious data escapes that data plane by spawning new commands to be executed on the host.
• Command Delimiters CAPEC-15 An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that allows an attacker's commands to be concatenated onto a legitimate command with the intent of targeting other resources such as the file system or database. The system that uses a filter or denylist input validation, as opposed to allowlist validation is vulnerable to an attacker who predicts delimiters (or combinations of delimiters) not present in the filter or denylist. As with other injection attacks, the attacker uses the command delimiter payload as an entry point to tunnel through the application and activate additional attacks through SQL queries, shell commands, network scanning, and so on.
• Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers CAPEC-43 An attacker supplies the target software with input data that contains sequences of special characters designed to bypass input validation logic. This exploit relies on the target making multiples passes over the input data and processing a "layer" of special characters with each pass. In this manner, the attacker can disguise input that would otherwise be rejected as invalid by concealing it with layers of special/escape characters that are stripped off by subsequent processing steps. The goal is to first discover cases where the input validation layer executes before one or more parsing layers. That is, user input may go through the following logic in an application: <parser1> --> <input validator> --> <parser2>. In such cases, the attacker will need to provide input that will pass through the input validator, but after passing through parser2, will be converted into something that the input validator was supposed to stop.
• Argument Injection CAPEC-6 An attacker changes the behavior or state of a targeted application through injecting data or command syntax through the targets use of non-validated and non-filtered arguments of exposed services or methods.
• OS Command Injection CAPEC-88 In this type of an attack, an adversary injects operating system commands into existing application functions. An application that uses untrusted input to build command strings is vulnerable. An adversary can leverage OS command injection in an application to elevate privileges, execute arbitrary commands and compromise the underlying operating system.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

• CVE-2026-97027 – Flatpak passes through arbitrary vendor-extension keys unmodified when exporting an application's Desktop Entry (.desktop) and D-Bus Service (.serv...
• CVE-2026-97026 – Flatpak creates temporary child repository directories under the user cache with world-writable permissions (0777). On multi-user systems with a pe...
• CVE-2026-97025 – Flatpak writes the OCI repository authentication token with world-readable permissions (0644) in the system-helper's cache directory, allowing othe...
• CVE-2026-91096 – In proxygen from v2024.10.28.00 until v2026.09.28.00, WebTransportImpl::terminateSessionStreams (WebTransportImpl::destroy in releases before v2025...
• CVE-2026-91095 – In proxygen from v2024.10.28.00 until v2026.09.28.00, the HTTPTransaction::onWebTransportUniStream and HTTPTransaction::onWebTransportBidiStream AP...