Vigilbase CVEConnect your agent

The Events Calendar <= 6.17.4 - Unauthenticated PHP Object Injection to Remote Code Execution

Not in CISA KEVCVE-2026-78006CWE-502

Not confirmed exploited. 1 of 8 rule sources name it.

Edge rules
1/8
Our test
No exploit yet
CVSS
9.8
EPSS
1.5% Top 26%
Posts, 14d
02026-10-20: 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: 0 posts
Published
2026-09-12
The The Events Calendar plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Remote Code Execution in all versions up to, and including, 6.17.4 via the is_safe_widget_instance function. This is due to insufficient protection in is_safe_widget_instance,… More

The The Events Calendar plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Remote Code Execution in all versions up to, and including, 6.17.4 via the is_safe_widget_instance function. This is due to insufficient protection in is_safe_widget_instance, which can be bypassed because PHP fires magic methods during its pre-parse, combined with enable_rendering_widget_copied() forging a valid wp_hash integrity attribute before unserialize() is reached. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to execute code on the server. This is exploitable without authentication or approval because the plugin's V2 single-event template runs do_blocks() over buffered comment HTML, and WordPress returns a moderation-hash URL that allows an unauthenticated commenter to immediately view their own pending comment, delivering the injected block markup to the vulnerable code path before any moderation occurs. This does require comments to be enabled and visible on events.

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page
Ask about CVE-2026-78006: 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 · 9.8 / 10

Exploitable over the network, with no privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality, integrity and availability.

Over the internetNo login neededNo user actionWorks reliablyFull compromise
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 damage stays within the vulnerable component.
    Unchanged
  • Confidentiality impactAn attacker can read all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.
    High
  • Integrity impactAn attacker can change any data or files the affected component protects.
    High
  • Availability impactAn attacker can take the component down completely or keep it from serving anyone.
    High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 impactTotal

A successful attack gives full control over the affected software or all of its data.

Public exploits

None found
0 Metasploit0 Exploit-DB0 Scanner template0 GitHub PoCs

No exploit in Exploit-DB or Metasploit, and no scanner template. That lowers, but doesn't remove, the chance of mass exploitation.

Timeline

  1. 2026-09-12
    CVE published
    CVE List
  2. 2026-10-21
    F5 ships a rule
    WordPress The Events Calendar Unauthenticated RCE

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: 0 posts

No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.

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)1 quoteRule published

First rule 2026-10-21, 39 days after the CVE was published.

2026-10-21New rule200204107Source
Added: signature 200204107 "WordPress The Events Calendar Unauthenticated RCE" (Server Side Code Injection, risk High), systems: WordPress. References: CVE-2026-78006, CVE-2026-78159.
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.