Skip to content

CVE-2026-9834

Is CVE-2026-9834 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
7.2 High
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
2%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-77
CWE

High CVSS base score, but low real-world exploitation probability (EPSS). Likely less urgent than the score implies.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Real, but low real-world risk

A genuine vulnerability on paper, but EPSS shows little real-world exploitation — the base score may overstate urgency. This is not the same as a false positive.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →

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

The WP Database Backup – Unlimited Database & Files Backup by Backup for WP plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to OS Command Injection in all versions up to and including 7.11 via the `wp_db_exclude_table` parameter. This is due to the direct concatenation of user-supplied `$_POST['wp_db_exclude_table']` values into the `mysqldump` shell command string in the `mysqldump()` function of `includes/admin/class-wpdb-admin.php` without wrapping them in `escapeshellarg()`—every other argument in the same command (DB_USER, DB_PASSWORD, host, filename, DB_NAME) is properly escaped, making the exclude-table values the sole exception—and because the only applied filtering, `sanitize_text_field()` via `recursive_sanitize_text_field()`, strips HTML tags but leaves shell metacharacters such as `;`, `|`, `` ` ``, and `$()` intact. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with administrator-level access and above, to execute arbitrary operating system commands on the server, potentially enabling full remote code execution. The injection is stored: malicious values submitted through the plugin settings form are persisted to the WordPress options table via `update_option('wp_db_exclude_table')` and later retrieved with `get_option()` and passed unsanitized to `shell_exec()` whenever a backup operation runs.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-9834
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-9834/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-9834)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-9834"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-9834/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-9834"></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-77.