CyberSecBulletin
CVE-2026-1771NVD status: Deferred

The MapSVG plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to arbitrary file uploads due to missing file…

Published Updated By the CyberSecBulletin desk

CVE-2026-1771 is a high-severity improper input validation vulnerability in MapSVG – Vector maps, Image maps, Google Maps from Oyatek, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.2 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an attacker with administrator privileges, without any action from a user. Affected MapSVG – Vector maps, Image maps, Google Maps versions: 8.14.0 and earlier. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 1.09% chance of exploitation within 30 days, higher than 66% of scored CVEs.

Next patch cycle

High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.

What to do

  1. Check which version of MapSVG – Vector maps, Image maps, Google Maps you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.

Affected products and versions

VendorProductAffected versionsFixed in
OyatekMapSVG – Vector maps, Image maps, Google Maps8.14.0 and earlierNot stated

Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.

How the severity score breaks down

Attack vector
NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
Attack complexity
LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
Privileges required
HighAdministrator-level access is required first.
User interaction
NoneNo action by a victim is required.
Scope
UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
Confidentiality
HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
Integrity
HighData or code can be modified at will.
Availability
HighThe component can be taken down completely.

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by CNA (wordfence.com).

Official description

The MapSVG plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to arbitrary file uploads due to missing file type validation in the SVGFile constructor in all versions up to, and including, 8.14.0 This is due to an incorrect conditional check that prevents file validation from taking place. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with Administrator-level access and above, to upload arbitrary files on the affected site's server which may make remote code execution possible.

Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.

The underlying weakness: Improper Input Validation

The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.

How developers prevent this class of flaw

  • Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build recognizers for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses.
  • Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
  • Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.

More Improper Input Validation vulnerabilities (CWE-20)

Timeline

  1. CVE record published.
  2. CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: total).
  3. Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).

References

Recent Improper Input Validation vulnerabilities

Spotted an error? Tell us.