Vigilbase CVEConnect your agent

WordPress JoomSport plugin <= 5.7.7 - SQL Injection vulnerability

Not in CISA KEVCVE-2026-42647CWE-89

Not confirmed exploited. No WAF vendor names it yet. Our CRS test: partly blocked.

Edge rules
0/8
Our test
Partly blocked
CVSS
9.3
EPSS
1.3% Top 29%
Posts, 14d
12026-10-20: 0 posts2026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 1 posts
Published
2026-06-11

Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in an SQL Command ('SQL Injection') vulnerability in Beardev JoomSport allows Blind SQL Injection. This issue affects JoomSport: from n/a through 5.7.7.

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page
Ask about CVE-2026-42647: who's covered, what to patch first, how vendors compare. I cite sources and won't help with attacks.

Workers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.

Severity, decoded

CVSS 3.1
Critical · 9.3 / 10

Exploitable over the network, with no privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality and low impact on availability, and the impact can reach components beyond the vulnerable one.

Over the internetNo login neededNo user actionWorks reliablySpreads beyond the appSerious impact
How the score is built8 metrics
  • Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.
    Network
  • Attack complexityNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
    Low
  • Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.
    None
  • User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.
    None
  • ScopeThe attack can spread beyond the vulnerable component to other parts of the system.
    Changed
  • Confidentiality impactAn attacker can read all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.
    High
  • Integrity impactData cannot be changed by the attacker.
    None
  • Availability impactAn attacker can slow the component down or interrupt it now and then.
    Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:L
CISA's assessmentSSVC, from the CVE record
ExploitationNone

CISA has seen no public exploit and no attacks.

AutomatableYes

Attackers can script the attack end to end and hit many targets at once.

Technical impactPartial

A successful attack gives limited control over the affected software or limited access to its data.

Public exploits

1 found
0 Metasploit0 Exploit-DB1 Scanner template0 GitHub PoCs

Links are to third-party code: never run it outside an isolated lab.

Timeline

  1. 2026-06-11
    CVE published
    CVE List
  2. 2026-11-02
    First social mention we saw
  3. 2026-11-02
    Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked part of it
    paranoia level 1, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
  4. 2026-11-02
    Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set blocked part of it
    paranoia level 2, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings

Social

2026-10-20: 0 posts2026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 1 posts

Top posts

  • DFIR Lab@DFIR_Lab·

    🚨 CRITICAL: CVE-2026-42647 (CVSS 9.3) SQL Injection in Beardev JoomSport ≤5.7.7. Network exploitable, no auth required. Allows blind SQLi with high confidentiality impact. Patch immediately. #CVE #Vulnerability #PatchNow #ThreatIntel https://t.co/PvN0SjuOS9

    View on X

Vendor statements

Quoted
CloudflareWAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each row gives the rule ID and its default action. The feed starts in January 2025, so older rules are missing.

AWSAWS WAF Managed RulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.

Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.

Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rulesNo public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.

FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patchesBefore feed history

The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.

F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Each signature lists the CVEs it references, with its id and date. F5 does not state a default action; signatures enforce once staging ends in your policy.

AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)No public source

This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.

OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.