What is CVE-2026-45293?

CVE-2026-45293 is WordPress Coding Standards (WordPressCS) contains an arbitrary code execution vulnerability. The supplied enrichment data classifies it as Remote Code Exec mapped to CWE-95 Eval Injection.

Which versions are affected?

Affected product and version evidence is listed in the product table above. Current public advisories should be checked for exact version scope before patch targeting is finalized.

Is there active exploitation?

Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-45293. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

No. CVE-2026-45293 is not listed in CISA KEV in the supplied enrichment data. KEV status should be monitored because it can change after initial disclosure or after exploitation becomes publicly confirmed.

Is there a public exploit?

A public PoC is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-45293. Public exploit or PoC availability should raise triage priority, especially for exposed or business-critical systems.

How can defenders detect it?

Start with EDR process telemetry, host service logs where available. Look for vulnerability-class behavior, product errors, suspicious authentication events, exploit probes, and abnormal process activity based only on evidence that applies to the affected product.

How should teams prioritize it?

Prioritize CVE-2026-45293 using CVSS 8.6, EPSS 0%, KEV status, public PoC status, and asset exposure. Internet-facing, privileged, or business-critical deployments should be handled first.

Are workarounds available?

The supplied mitigation guidance says to apply vendor patches and restrict external exposure until fixed. Fixed-version evidence is listed in the mitigation section above.

Which threat actors are linked publicly?

No public threat actor linkage is confirmed from current sources. Do not attribute exploitation to a threat actor unless the source evidence explicitly supports that linkage.

What should be done in the next 24 hours?

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations. Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure. Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class. Open remediation tickets with affected assets, owners, evidence status, and detection coverage so decisions are traceable.

highRemote Code Exec

CVE-2026-45293

CVE-2026-45293 — 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, 2026Updated Jul 29, 2026Sources: NVD, WordPress (CNA)

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

WordPress

WordPress-Coding-Standards

CVSS base

8.6

high

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

None

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Total

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade WordPress-Coding-Standards to a fixed release. Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status
WordPress	WordPress-Coding-Standards	>= 0.14.1, < 3.4.1	Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Availability

High

Confidentiality

High

Integrity

High

Scope

Changed

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Local

Privileges Req

None

User Interaction

Required

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Source
8.6	CVSS 3.1	high	1.8	6	GitHub (CNA), WordPress (CNA)

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

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-95Eval Injection

Inferred from the weakness class — not observed against this CVE.

CAPEC-242 · Code InjectionCAPEC-35 · Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files

T1027.006Obfuscated Files or Information: HTML Smuggling
T1027.009Obfuscated Files or Information: Embedded Payloads
T1564.009Hide Artifacts: Resource Forking

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

EDR process telemetryhost service logs

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

2026
Added · CVSS 3.1 8.6 (AV:L)
Jul 29, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Jul 28, 2026 · NVD

References

4 on the record

github.com/WordPress/WordPress-Coding-Standards/commit/a29048d0bbef5cf25d42349c74e4072d3cbc8325
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
github.com/WordPress/WordPress-Coding-Standards/pull/2771
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
github.com/WordPress/WordPress-Coding-Standards/releases/tag/3.4.1
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
github.com/WordPress/WordPress-Coding-Standards/security/advisories/GHSA-3pwp-g2mj-5p3v
Exploit, Third Party Advisory

Elsewhere on this site

WordPressevery CVE for this vendor
Remote Code Execsame class
CWE-95other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record1

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-45293 is WordPress Coding Standards (WordPressCS) contains an arbitrary code execution vulnerability, a high vulnerability affecting WordPress-Coding-Standards from WordPress. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-45293. Public exploit evidence is: A public PoC is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-45293. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 8.6 describes technical severity, while EPSS 0% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.