ARTIFICE DAILY AI + CYBER SECURITY BRIEFING

Cybersecurity

WordPress fixes Comment2Shell remote code execution flaw

WordPress patched a core comment-handling flaw that could let a crafted comment become browser-side script and, if an administrator later viewed the page, lead to server-side code execution.

The Hacker News

WordPress fixed CVE-2026-93485, which it called Comment2Shell, in version 7.1.1 on 17 September. It advised site owners to install the update and said it had found no sign of active abuse.

Patchstack assigned the identifier and gave the flaw a CVSS score of 7.1. Rafie Muhammad, who reported the bug, said the weakness sat between the step that checked a comment and the step that later reformatted it for display.

In Muhammad's account, a line break placed inside an allowed HTML tag could survive the first check and become script when the page rendered. The script could run in the browser of anyone who opened the page, and a logged-in administrator who did so could use their session to upload a plugin carrying a web shell.

WordPress said the issue depended on a comment reaching the page, while Muhammad described ways around moderation. The write-up said the bug affected block themes, including the default Twenty Twenty-Two setup, and also some classic themes such as Twenty Twenty-One.

The 7.1.1 release fixed 11 security issues in total. It also addressed Click2Shell, a separate flaw that could lead to code execution if an administrator opened a crafted link.

Named in this story

People

Rafie Muhammad
reported the bug and described the attack chain

Companies

Patchstack
assigned the identifier and scored the flaw

Products and systems

WordPress
fixed the flaw in core
Comment2Shell
the comment-handling flaw discussed in the article
Twenty Twenty-Two
the default block theme that was affected
Twenty Twenty-One
a classic theme named as also affected
Click2Shell
the second flaw fixed in the same release
wp2shell
a separate code-execution flaw mentioned for comparison

How the source tells it

The piece read as a plain technical advisory, with a short remediation section and little emotive framing.

No emotive framing was found in the original.