Skip to main content

Branda CVE-2026-102376

| EUVDEUVD-2026-90222 HIGH
Cross-site Scripting (XSS) (CWE-79)
2026-09-30 Patchstack GHSA-49px-rhgj-v463
7.1
CVSS 3.1 · Vendor: Patchstack
View

Attack ChainAIDerived

Hypothetical attack flow derived from CVE metadata – not a confirmed exploit chain

  1. Access
    Register/obtain Subscriber account
  2. Delivery
    Inject script payload via Branda field
  3. Exploit
    Payload stored/reflected unsanitized
  4. Execution
    Admin views affected page
  5. Persist
    Script executes in admin browser session
  6. Impact
    Session hijack or action in victim context

Vulnerability Assessment

Weakness
CWE
OWASP Top 10:2025
A05:2025 - Injection
ASVS 5.0
V1 - Encoding and Sanitization Output encoding, context-aware escaping
MITRE ATT&CK

2 techniques across 2 tactics: Initial Access, Execution

The technique list with ATT&CK links and the kill-chain view is part of the Basic plan and up.

Exploitation Conditions

Requires WordPress running the Branda (white-labeling) plugin at version 3.4.32 or earlier. Per the vulnerability title ('Subscriber' XSS), an attacker needs at least a low-privileged authenticated Subscriber account to inject the payload, and exploitation further depends on a victim (typically a higher-privileged user/administrator) viewing the malicious content - the UI:R requirement. Limiting factors: authenticated access is needed (contradicting the vector's PR:N), the impact is confined to the browser JavaScript context (low CIA), and sites that disable open user registration substantially raise the bar to obtaining the required Subscriber account.

Impact

This is a stored/reflected Cross-Site Scripting flaw (CWE-79) in the Branda WordPress plugin, reported by Patchstack with a CVSS 3.1 score of 7.1 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L). The network vector, low complexity and scope change (S:C) drive the score, but the impacts are all Low (C:L/I:L/A:L), which is typical of browser-context XSS rather than server compromise. There is a notable internal conflict: the vulnerability title explicitly says 'Subscriber Cross Site Scripting', indicating that a logged-in Subscriber-level account is required to plant the payload, yet the CVSS vector encodes PR:N (no privileges). This PR:N is almost certainly a Patchstack scoring convention rather than a true unauthenticated condition - verify with the Patchstack advisory; realistically at least a low-privileged authenticated account is needed. No EPSS score, no CISA KEV listing, and no public exploit were provided, so this is no public exploit identified at time of analysis. SSVC-style reading: exploitation is not observed, the technical impact is partial (low CIA), and while XSS is often automatable, the requirement for a Subscriber account and victim interaction (UI:R) reduces mass-exploitation likelihood. Overall this is a moderate, defense-in-depth priority - a real but bounded XSS in a niche plugin, not a high-urgency network RCE despite the 7.1 headline.

Exploit ScenarioDerived

An attacker registers or obtains a low-privileged Subscriber account on a WordPress site running Branda <= 3.4.32 and submits input containing a malicious script payload through a plugin field that is insufficiently sanitized. When a higher-privileged user such as an administrator later views that content in wp-admin, the script executes in their authenticated browser session, enabling session/cookie theft or admin actions in the victim's context. No public proof-of-concept was provided in the intelligence supplied.

This Week Schedule remediation this week. Why: HIGH severity (CVSS 7.0-8.9).
No patch listed yet 0.3% exploitation probability (EPSS)

Get an e-mail when this CVE is exploited, patched or re-scored. Free account.

Alert me

AnalysisAIv1 – Sep 30, 2026

Cross-site scripting in the Branda WordPress white-labeling plugin (versions up to and including 3.4.32) allows a low-privileged Subscriber-level account to plant JavaScript that then executes in the browser of a higher-privileged user, such as an administrator, who views the affected content - potentially enabling session or administrative actions in that victim's context. The flaw is tracked as CVE-2026-102376 (EUVD-2026-90222), reported by Patchstack, with a published CVSS 3.1 score of 7.1 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L); our assessment revises the privilege requirement to PR:L because the 'Subscriber' attack path assumes at least an authenticated low-privileged account, while impact remains confined to the browser JavaScript context (low confidentiality, integrity and availability). No public exploit identified at time of analysis, and there is no CISA KEV entry confirming active exploitation.

RemediationAI

No vendor-released patch identified at time of analysis for the 3.4.32-and-earlier issue; the primary action is to update Branda as soon as WPMU DEV publishes a release beyond 3.4.32, applying the highest available version rather than assuming 3.4.32 is fixed. Until then, use compensating controls that target the Subscriber prerequisite: disable open user registration or require manual approval/email verification so untrusted visitors cannot obtain the account needed to inject payloads (trade-off: reduced community sign-ups and added administrative overhead), and audit and remove or downgrade stale Subscriber accounts on affected sites. If Branda's white-labeling features are not essential, deactivate and remove the plugin entirely, which eliminates the attack surface at the cost of losing branding customizations; if it must stay active, restrict access to the plugin's pages and to wp-admin via IP allowlisting or a hardening plugin and enable a Content Security Policy that blocks inline script where feasible (trade-off: CSP may break legitimate admin UI scripts). Deploying a WAF rule set that filters XSS payloads in WordPress plugin parameters provides interim detection and blocking but is bypassable and should not be treated as a fix. Monitor the Patchstack advisory at https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/branda-white-labeling/vulnerability/wordpress-branda-plugin-3-4-32-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve, EUVD-2026-90222, and WPMU DEV release notes for the patched version, and treat administrative session cookie exposure as the key post-compromise risk if exploitation is suspected.

Affected VersionsENISA

Branda n/a ≤3.4.32

Affected Packages

euvd branda no fix

Source: OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities)

Affects your stack

Affects 1 package in euvd

Checking this CVE against your own stacks and servers is part of the Basic plan and up.

Technical ContextAI · show details

The root cause is CWE-79 (Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation), i.e. classic cross-site scripting, in a WordPress plugin - here the Branda white-labeling plugin distributed by WPMU DEV and identified by the CPE cpe:2.3:a:wpmu_dev:branda:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*. Branda is admin-facing software that alters branding and login/admin experience, so its rendered output is typically viewed by privileged users; injected script therefore executes with the audience and page context of the victim rather than the attacker. The assessed vector's scope change (S:C) reflects that the injected script crosses a privilege boundary - from the Subscriber who supplies the input to the administrative user's browser session - which raises the score above what a same-scope reflected XSS would receive. The published vector lists PR:N, but the reported 'Subscriber' attack path and our independent assessment both indicate a low-privileged authenticated account is needed to introduce the payload (PR:L), and exploitation still depends on a victim interacting with the crafted page (UI:R). Impact is limited to low C/I/A because the payload runs as JavaScript in the victim's browser rather than yielding direct server-side compromise.

Know when Branda gets its next vulnerability

  • Watch products and get an email when something new is published
  • Check this CVE against your own stack and servers
  • Exploit and PoC references, threat intelligence from 22 sources

No credit card · 7-day full trial

Severity by source

Vendor (Patchstack) PRIMARY 7.1 HIGH
AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
vuln.today AI 5.4 MEDIUM

Title indicates a Subscriber account is required so PR:L not PR:N; victim must view the payload (UI:R); browser-context XSS yields low C/I and no real availability impact.

3.1 AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
4.0 AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N

Primary rating from Vendor (Patchstack).

CVSS VectorVendor: Patchstack

Attack Vector
Network
Attack Complexity
Low
Privileges Required
None
User Interaction
Required
Scope
Changed
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
Low

DescriptionCVE.org

Subscriber Cross Site Scripting (XSS) in Branda <= 3.4.32 versions.

Executive ViewAI

Why It Matters

The Branda WordPress white-labeling plugin (versions up to and including 3.4.32) contains a cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows a low-privileged user to inject JavaScript that executes in an administrator's browser, potentially leading to session hijacking or unauthorized administrative actions. This could compromise the integrity of the entire WordPress site, affecting all users and potentially exposing sensitive data. With no vendor patch currently available and no public exploit identified at time of analysis, leadership should prioritize interim mitigations to reduce the risk of administrative account compromise.

Business Impact: High
Compensating Controls

No vendor-released patch identified at time of analysis. Interim mitigations include disabling the Branda plugin, restricting Subscriber-level account creation or content submission, deploying WAF rules to filter XSS payloads, and monitoring administrative sessions for anomalous activity.

Threat Intelligence Overview

EPSS Score
0.3%
Top 85% exploitable
Prevalence
Medium
Popular WPMU DEV white-labeling plugin, common but not on most WordPress sites
Data Quality
4 sources
Confidence: Medium

How this decision was reached

The engine reads each signal below and applies a fixed list of rules from top to bottom. The first rule that matches sets the recommended action – like a statement, every line is shown.

SignalValue
Severity HIGH
CISA KEV No
Public POC No
EPSS 0.3%
Patch available No
Active threat No
Deciding rule
HIGH severity (CVSS 7.0-8.9)
What every action level means
Emergency Immediate action required. Criteria: CRITICAL + in CISA KEV (actively exploited) without patch, OR CRITICAL + EPSS > 30% without patch, OR CRITICAL + active threat signals without patch.
Act Now Prioritize within 24-48h. Criteria: in KEV with patch available, OR CRITICAL + public POC, OR HIGH + EPSS > 10%, OR CRITICAL + active threat, OR any CRITICAL severity.
This Week Schedule remediation this week. Criteria: HIGH severity (CVSS 7.0-8.9). Patch within normal change window.
This Month Plan within 30 days. Criteria: MEDIUM severity (CVSS 4.0-6.9), lower exploitation probability. Include in regular patch cycle.
Monitor Track and reassess. Criteria: LOW severity (CVSS 0.1-3.9), minimal exploitation risk. No immediate action needed.

SSVC AssessmentENISA

SSVC Decision
Scheduled
Exploitation
None
System Exposure· derived
Open
Automatable
No
Human Impact
High
Technical Impact
Partial

Priority Score

36
Low Medium High Critical
KEV: 0
EPSS: 0
CVSS: +36
PoC: 0
Weaponized: 0
Threat intel: 0
Gov advisory: 0

Attack Technique

Cross-Site Scripting occurs when an application accepts untrusted data and sends it to a web browser without proper validation or encoding.

This site uses cookies essential for authentication and security. No tracking or analytics cookies are used. Privacy Policy