Skip to main content

Tracking Code Manager EUVDEUVD-2026-101846

| CVE-2026-15180 MEDIUM
Cross-site Scripting (XSS) (CWE-79)
2026-10-15 Wordfence GHSA-7572-wgx4-m8rc
6.1
CVSS 3.1 · Vendor: Wordfence
View

Attack ChainAIDerived

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

  1. Access
    Craft malicious link with script in TCM_ErrorMessages param
  2. Delivery
    Social-engineer victim into clicking link
  3. Exploit
    Unsanitized POST value reflected into page
  4. Execution
    Script executes in victim browser
  5. Impact
    Hijack session or act as victim

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

Exploitation requires that a victim with access to the affected site be tricked into clicking an attacker-crafted link or submitting a request carrying a script payload in the 'TCM_ErrorMessages' POST parameter, which the plugin reflects into a page without sanitization or output escaping. No authentication is required of the attacker (PR:N), and default configurations of Tracking Code Manager ≤2.6.0 are affected - the plugin feature itself is the vulnerable sink. The key limiting factors are: mandatory user interaction (UI:R), and the reflected (non-persistent) nature of the flaw, meaning each victim must be individually lured rather than compromised by merely visiting a stored page.

Impact

This is a moderate-severity reflected XSS (CVSS 6.1, CWE-79) with a coherent set of signals pointing to real-but-limited risk. The CVSS vector AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R confirms a network-reachable, low-complexity, unauthenticated attack that nevertheless REQUIRES victim interaction (clicking a crafted link), which is the single largest mitigating factor and typical of reflected (non-stored) XSS. Scope is changed (S:C) because injected script executes in the victim's browser context outside the vulnerable component, with limited confidentiality and integrity impact (C:L/I:L) and no availability impact (A:N). No EPSS score, KEV listing, or public POC is present in the provided data, so there is no evidence of active exploitation or mass automation - the finding originates from Wordfence research rather than observed attacks. Net assessment: a legitimate issue to patch on exposed WordPress sites, but not an emergency priority in the absence of exploitation signals; reflected XSS requiring per-victim social engineering is rarely weaponized at scale compared to stored XSS or unauthenticated RCE.

Exploit ScenarioDerived

An unauthenticated attacker crafts a malicious link (or auto-submitting form) that sends a POST request with a script payload in the 'TCM_ErrorMessages' parameter to a site running Tracking Code Manager ≤2.6.0. When a victim is socially engineered into clicking the link, the unsanitized value is reflected into the page and the script executes in the victim's browser, potentially stealing session cookies or performing actions as that user. No public exploit code was identified in the provided data, though the vulnerability mechanics are straightforward to reproduce.

This Month Plan within 30 days. Why: MEDIUM severity (CVSS 4.0-6.9).
No patch listed yet 0.2% exploitation probability (EPSS)

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

Alert me

AnalysisAIv1 – Oct 15, 2026

Reflected cross-site scripting in the WordPress plugin Tracking Code Manager (Data443) affects all versions up to and including 2.6.0, allowing unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary script into a page by supplying a payload in the TCM_ErrorMessages POST parameter, which the plugin reflects without sanitization or output escaping. Exploitation requires the attacker to lure a victim into submitting a crafted request or clicking a specially crafted link (UI:R), so each target must be individually induced to trigger the payload rather than being compromised by simply browsing a poisoned page. No confirmed active exploitation (CISA KEV) and no public exploit code were identified at time of analysis, and no EPSS score was supplied; the flaw is rated moderate (CVSS 6.1) with the main risk being session or credential theft against authenticated site users who are tricked into interacting with the crafted request.

RemediationAI

No tagged patched release version was independently confirmed in the provided data; the upstream fix is reflected in Tracking Code Manager changeset 3633064, which modifies trunk/includes/classes/utils/Options.php to add sanitization/escaping, so treat this as an upstream fix available via commit/changeset rather than a verified vendor release number - administrators should update the plugin to the first version published after 2.6.0 (verify the exact version in the WordPress.org plugin repository or the Wordfence advisory at https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/8f7ee196-1151-4312-ac61-0bb6756850bb?source=cve) and re-check the installed version afterward, since WordPress will not silently upgrade a plugin that has not been released. If an immediate update is not possible, the strongest compensating control is to deactivate Tracking Code Manager until a fixed build is installed - the trade-off is loss of tracking-code functionality but complete removal of the vulnerable sink. Alternatively, deploy a WAF or virtual-patching layer (for example Wordfence's rules, which cover this plugin family) that blocks requests carrying script content in the TCM_ErrorMessages parameter; the trade-off is rule-maintenance overhead and possible false positives on legitimate administrative submissions. Because the flaw is reflected and requires a victim to submit the crafted request, restricting access to the plugin's option/error-handling endpoints to trusted administrators (IP allowlisting or HTTP authentication in front of wp-admin and admin-ajax paths) meaningfully reduces exposure but does not eliminate the risk if an administrator can still be socially engineered. Applying a restrictive Content-Security-Policy that disallows inline script execution provides defense in depth at the cost of potentially breaking legitimate plugin or theme scripts. Finally, remind site users not to follow unsolicited links or submit unexpected forms that target the site's administrative URLs, since user interaction is a mandatory precondition for exploitation.

Affected VersionsENISA

Tracking Code Manager 0 ≤2.6.0

Affected Packages

euvd tracking_code_manager 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 issue is a classic CWE-79 improper neutralization of input during web page generation (cross-site scripting) in the WordPress plugin Tracking Code Manager, published by Data443 and identified by CPE cpe:2.3:a:data443:tracking_code_manager. The vulnerable sink is the plugin's error-message handling: the TCM_ErrorMessages POST parameter is accepted and echoed back into a generated page without adequate input sanitization or output escaping, as reflected by the upstream change to includes/classes/utils/Options.php. Because the payload is reflected rather than persisted, the attack surface is the request/response path reaching the plugin's options-handling code, not a stored database record. The CVSS vector CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N indicates a network-reachable flaw with no authentication required of the attacker (PR:N), low attack complexity, mandatory victim interaction, and a scope change (S:C) meaning the injected script executes in the context of the affected site's origin and can reach beyond the vulnerable component's own security scope. WordPress plugins of this type are frequently reachable through administrative option pages and AJAX-style handlers, so any deployment where Tracking Code Manager 2.6.0 or earlier is active and its options/error-handling endpoints are reachable should be considered exposed to the reflected payload.

Know when Tracking Code Manager 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 (Wordfence) PRIMARY 6.1 MEDIUM
AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
vuln.today AI 6.1 MEDIUM

Network-reachable unauthenticated reflected XSS (AV:N/PR:N) needing victim click (UI:R); script runs cross-context (S:C) with limited C/I and no availability impact.

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

Primary rating from Vendor (Wordfence).

CVSS VectorVendor: Wordfence

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

DescriptionCVE.org

The Tracking Code Manager plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Reflected Cross-Site Scripting via 'TCM_ErrorMessages' POST Parameter in all versions up to, and including, 2.6.0 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that execute if they can successfully trick a user into performing an action such as clicking on a link.

Threat Intelligence Overview

EPSS Score
0.2%
Top 90% exploitable
Prevalence
Medium
popular WordPress tracking plugin with moderate install base, not universal
Social Media
1
Sightings
Data Quality
5 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 MEDIUM
CISA KEV No
Public POC No
EPSS 0.2%
Patch available No
Active threat No
Deciding rule
MEDIUM severity (CVSS 4.0-6.9)
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· derived
Scheduled
Exploitation
None
System Exposure· derived
Open
Automatable
No
Human Impact· derived
Medium
Technical Impact
Partial

Priority Score

30
Low Medium High Critical
KEV: 0
EPSS: 0
CVSS: +30
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