Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:NSummary
CVE-2026-39333 is a high-severity Cross-site Scripting (CWE-79) vulnerability in Churchcrm Churchcrm. Its CVSS base score is 8.7 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Browser Session Hijacking (T1185); ranked at the 12th 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.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2026-39333 is a reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability (CWE-79) in ChurchCRM, an open-source church management system. In versions prior to 7.1.0, the FindFundRaiser.php endpoint improperly reflects user-supplied input from the DateStart and DateEnd parameters into HTML input field attributes without adequate output encoding for the HTML attribute context. This flaw allows injection of malicious payloads into dynamically generated web pages.
An authenticated attacker with low privileges (PR:L) can exploit this vulnerability over the network (AV:N) with low attack complexity (AC:L) by crafting a malicious URL. The URL requires user interaction (UI:R) from another authenticated user who visits it, leading to execution of arbitrary JavaScript in the victim's browser context. Successful exploitation changes the scope (S:C) and results in high confidentiality (C:H) and integrity (I:H) impacts, with no availability disruption (A:N), as scored at CVSS 8.7 (CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:N).
The vulnerability is addressed in ChurchCRM version 7.1.0, which includes a fix for proper output encoding. Additional details are available in the GitHub security advisory at https://github.com/ChurchCRM/CRM/security/advisories/GHSA-fqq6-qrcf-h7h5. Security practitioners should upgrade to 7.1.0 or later and review access controls for the affected endpoint.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-19829
Vulnerability Data
ChurchCRM is an open-source church management system. Prior to 7.1.0, he FindFundRaiser.php endpoint reflects user-supplied input (DateStart and DateEnd) into HTML input field attributes without proper output encoding for the HTML attribute context. An authenticated attacker can craft a malicious…
more
URL that executes arbitrary JavaScript when visited by another authenticated user. This constitutes a reflected XSS vulnerability. This vulnerability is fixed in 7.1.0.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.1.2V1.3.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing or incorrect input neutralization through targeted web-application tests.
Input validation directly enforces neutralization of untrusted data before it reaches web output generation.
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly target introduction of XSS via coding standards/testing (mostly), yet the single broad outcome leaves many specific neutralization vectors unaddressed (partial).
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.
Secure-coding testing and automated code-analysis tools are applied to detect improper neutralization of script-related content during web-page generation.
Knowledge exchange on emerging attack techniques and patches reduces the likelihood that cross-site scripting flaws remain unaddressed in deployed applications.
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.
Requiring language-specific secure-coding standards and automated scanning during the SDLC catches missing output encoding or improper neutralization of untrusted data before the software reaches production.
Secure-coding standards, SAST scans and removal of insecure code samples together eliminate the failure to neutralize script content that produces cross-site scripting flaws.
Webpage malware scanning and block-listing of known malicious sites reduce the likelihood that reflected or stored script payloads reach a user’s browser.