CVE Intelligence
Critical Injection

CVE-2026-97670 — Avada (Fusion) Builder <= 7.16.1 - Unauthenticated Arbitrary WordPress Action Invocation via '{action_hook}' Dynamic-Data Token in Form Field

The Avada (Fusion) Builder plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to authorization bypass in all versions up to, and including, 7.16.1. This is due to the plugin not properly verifying authorization before dispatching a WordPress action hook whose name is taken from an attacker-supplied form-field value (via the notification email_message [field] placeholder and the {action_hook,...} dynamic-data token; the 3.16.1 trust gate is_content_request_supplied() only inspects $_POST['args']/$_GET['args'], never the $_POST['formData'] the public form-submit endpoint parses). This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to invoke arbitrary WordPress action hooks (multiple per request), causing state changes up to permanent, irreversible destruction of site content: a verified unauthenticated request permanently deleted trashed posts, pages, and comments via the core wp_scheduled_delete action. Other non-deny-listed hooks extend the impact to denial of service (e.g. wp_maybe_auto_update) and, where vulnerable third-party handlers are installed, further privileged writes. The same unauthenticated dynamic-data pipeline additionally exposes a blind arbitrary user/post-meta read; the read result is delivered only to the site owner and is not attacker-exfiltrable through the plugin's own email/response paths. Exploitation requires a published Avada form with AJAX submission and a notification whose email_message template includes an [all_fields] or explicit [field] placeholder - the default form configuration.

Published Oct 10, 2026 · Updated Oct 13, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: Wordfence

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • EPSS 0.4% (30-day exploitation probability)+4
  • Technical severity (critical)+10
  • Automatable exploitation (SSVC)+3

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
0.37%
ahead of 29% of scored CVEs · Oct 14, 2026
Affects
ThemeFusion
Avada (Fusion) Builder
CVSS base
9.1
Critical · 2 source(s)

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

Exploitation
None
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
Yes
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Partial
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (ThemeFusion Avada (Fusion) Builder).
  2. The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
  3. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  4. Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (injection), errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
ThemeFusion Avada (Fusion) Builder ≤ 7.16.1 Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
High

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
9.1 CVSS 3.1 Critical 3.9 5.2 security@wordfence.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database
9.1 CVSS 3.1 Critical — — Wordfence via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H (score shown at the top: security@wordfence.com)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-94 · Code Injection

Other CVEs with this weakness →

EPSS over time FIRST

Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 14, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.37%

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.

  • Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
  • Look for parameters with command/query metacharacters and unexpected child processes of the service.
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPSapplication logsendpoint telemetry (EDR)

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · themefusion/avada (fusion) builder
    Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 13, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 13, 2026
  • CVSS changed · 9.1
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Deferred
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 13, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Oct 10, 2026 · Wordfence

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 13, 2026 – Oct 13, 2026

References

2 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

ThemeFusion
every CVE for this vendor
Injection
same class
CWE-94
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-97471 Avada (Fusion) Builder <= 3.16.1 - Unauthenticated Sensitive Information Exposure in 'args[link_target]' Parameter via {user_meta} Dynamic Data Token 1d
  • CVE-2026-8713 Avada (Fusion) Builder WordPress Plugin - Arbitrary File Deletion via Path Traversal Jun 19, 2026
  • CVE-2026-6279 Avada (Fusion) Builder <= 3.15.2 - Unauthenticated Remote Code Execution via PHP Function Injection via 'render_logics' Shortcode Attribute via Widget AJAX Handler May 21, 2026
  • CVE-2026-1543 Avada (Fusion) Builder <= 3.15.2 - Authenticated (Subscriber+) Stored Cross-Site Scripting via Multiple Shortcodes May 21, 2026
  • CVE-2026-4798 Avada Builder <= 3.15.1 - Unauthenticated SQL Injection via 'product_order' Parameter May 13, 2026
  • CVE-2026-4782 Avada Builder <= 3.15.2 - Authenticated (Subscriber+) Arbitrary File Read via 'custom_svg' Shortcode Parameter May 13, 2026

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-97670 is "Avada (Fusion) Builder <= 7.16.1 - Unauthenticated Arbitrary WordPress Action Invocation via '{action_hook}' Dynamic-Data Token in Form Field", rated Critical. It affects Avada (Fusion) Builder (ThemeFusion); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 9.1 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.37% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.

Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.