CVE-2026-9848
CVE-2026-9848 — WP Ticket <= 6.0.4 - Unauthenticated SQL Injection via WordPress Search 's' Parameter
The WP Ticket plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to SQL Injection via the WordPress search query parameter (`s`) in versions up to, and including, 6.0.4 The plugin hooks WordPress's `posts_request` filter with `wp_ticket_com_posts_request()`, which calls `emd_author_search_results()` when the current request is an unauthenticated front-end search. That function reads `$query->query_vars['s']` — already wp_unslash()'d by `WP_Query::parse_query()`, so wp_magic_quotes protection has been stripped — and concatenates the raw value into a SQL `LIKE` clause inside a UNION sub-SELECT appended to the main query, with no `$wpdb->prepare()` or escaping. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to append additional SQL queries into already-existing queries that can be used to extract sensitive information from the database.
Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, Wordfence
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.
Exploitation
Exploit code
public exploit, none observed
EPSS
1%
chance of exploitation in 30 days
CVSS base
7.5
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.
Exploitation
None
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
Yes
can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Partial
partial · total control of the vulnerable component
Affected scope
The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.
Vendors (1)
Products (1)
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.5 | CVSS 3.1 | HIGH | — | — | cvelistV5 |
Weakness & attack patterns
- CWE-89
Public exploit
Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.
Indexed by
References
7 on the record
- www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/98f16e3a-4ef3-43f9-86b2-2cf8e26f9c80?source=cve
reference
- plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wp-ticket/tags/6.0.4/includes/common-functions.php#L174
reference
- plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wp-ticket/tags/6.0.4/includes/common-functions.php#L164
reference
- plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wp-ticket/tags/6.0.4/includes/query-filters.php#L57
reference
- plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/wp-ticket/tags/6.0.4/includes/filter-functions.php#L22
reference
- plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3565099/wp-ticket/trunk/includes/common-functions.php
reference
- plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?old_path=%2Fwp-ticket/tags/6.0.4&new_path=%2Fwp-ticket/tags/6.0.5
reference
Elsewhere on this site
- emarket designevery CVE for this vendor
- CWE-89other 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.