Cyber Resilience

CVE-2024-9940

XSS in Codepeople Calculated Fields Form ≤ 5.2.46

XSS
Published
17 October 2024
Modified
05 June 2025
Patch / advisory
View advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 5.3
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
EPSS Score 0.0037 30th percentile
Risk Priority 45 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2024-9940 is a medium-severity Special Element Injection (CWE-75) vulnerability in Codepeople Calculated Fields Form. Its CVSS base score is 5.3 (Medium).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Browser Session Hijacking (T1185); ranked at the 30th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.

The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

A05:2025 Injection

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

The Calculated Fields Form plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to HTML Injection in all versions up to, and including, 5.2.45. This is due to the plugin not properly neutralizing HTML elements from submitted forms. This makes it possible for unauthenticated…

more

attackers to inject arbitrary HTML that will render when the administrator views form submissions in their email.

CWE(s)
CWE-75CWE-79

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1185 Browser Session Hijacking Collection
Adversaries may take advantage of security vulnerabilities and inherent functionality in browser software to change content, modify user-behaviors, and intercept information as part of various browser session hijacking techniques.
attack.mitre.org →
T1539 Steal Web Session Cookie Credential Access
An adversary may steal web application or service session cookies and use them to gain access to web applications or Internet services as an authenticated user without needing credentials.
attack.mitre.org →
T1659 Content Injection Initial Access
Adversaries may gain access and continuously communicate with victims by injecting malicious content into systems through online network traffic.
attack.mitre.org →
T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
attack.mitre.org →
T1059 Command and Scripting Interpreter Execution
Adversaries may abuse command and script interpreters to execute commands, scripts, or binaries.
attack.mitre.org →
T1189 Drive-by Compromise Initial Access
Adversaries may gain access to a system through a user visiting a website over the normal course of browsing.
attack.mitre.org →
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2023-5955Same vendor: Codepeople
CVE-2023-2718Same vendor: Codepeople
CVE-2023-23971Same vendor: Codepeople
CVE-2026-27120Shared CWE-75, CWE-79
CVE-2023-25837Shared CWE-79
CVE-2023-22438Shared CWE-79
CVE-2023-27614Shared CWE-79
CVE-2023-47164Shared CWE-79
CVE-2023-49145Shared CWE-79
CVE-2023-47853Shared CWE-79

Affected Assets

codepeople
calculated fields form
≤ 5.2.46

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

—

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

—

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

—

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V1.1.2
  • V1.3.2

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

SA-11 Developer Testing and Evaluation good match

Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing or incorrect input neutralization through targeted web-application tests.

SI-10 Information Input Validation good match

Input validation directly stops special-element injection by rejecting or sanitizing untrusted data before it reaches a different control plane.

SI-15 Information Output Filtering good match

Output filtering can catch or sanitize unneutralized script content before it is served to users.

Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly require input sanitization to block special-element injection.

PR.PS-02 partial match
prevents

Patching and EOL replacement can remediate known XSS instances in libraries or frameworks (partial) but do nothing to enforce input neutralization in application code (none).

Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

A.8.29 Security testing in development and acceptance mostly match
finds

Security testing catches injection vulnerabilities but does not itself implement the sanitization fix.

A.5.6 Contact with special interest groups partial match
prevents

Knowledge exchange on emerging attack techniques and patches reduces the likelihood that cross-site scripting flaws remain unaddressed in deployed applications.

A.5.7 Threat intelligence partial match
prevents

Operational indicators of compromise for web-application attacks can be incorporated into WAF or input-filtering rules, lowering the likelihood that unsanitized data reaches the browser.

A.8.15 Logging partial match
finds

Logging can record injection attempts for detection but does not prevent the weakness.

A.8.25 Secure development life cycle partial match
prevents

Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and sanitization practices that directly prevent special-element injection.

A.8.26 Application security requirements partial match
prevents

Application security requirements explicitly call for controls against injection flaws including special-element handling.

References