Skip to content

CVE-2026-15010

Cross-site Scripting: Is CVE-2026-15010 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Public exploit
None known
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
6.4 Medium
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
n/a
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-79 · Cross-site Scripting
CWE

Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Low signal — verdict needed

Few public signals point to active risk. Whether a scanner hit here is a true or false positive depends on your version and config — community verdicts decide.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N

The bbp Style Pack plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting in versions up to, and including, 6.4.5 via the Topic Form Additional Fields feature. This is due to insufficient input sanitization in bsp_topic_fields_form_save() (which writes $_POST['bsp_topic_fields_label{n}'] directly to post meta via update_post_meta() with no filtering) and missing output escaping in bsp_topic_content_append_topic_fields() (which concatenates the stored meta value into an HTML <span> and echoes it via apply_filters/echo without esc_html()). This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Subscriber-level access and above (who have bbPress topic-creation privileges), to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page, including unauthenticated visitors.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-15010
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-15010/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-15010)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-15010"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-15010/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-15010"></a>

Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.

Community ground truth

Be the first practitioner to weigh in

So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.

🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.

In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?

awaiting field verdicts
Real, but not a risk here
Not a real issue

No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.

Field notes & remediation

Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.

No notes yet. Be the first to share what you saw, or a fix that worked.

    Add a field note or remediationoptional
    Note type

    What are you adding?

    Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

    Same weakness: CWE-79 · Cross-site Scripting.