Avada (Fusion) Builder: Improper Control of Generation of Code
CVE-2026-97670 is a critical-severity improper control of generation of code vulnerability in Avada (Fusion) Builder from ThemeFusion, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 9.1 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. Affected Avada (Fusion) Builder versions: 7.16.1 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 0.46% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
Critical severity: a successful attack would have severe impact.
What to do
- Check which version of Avada (Fusion) Builder you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
- Until you can update, restrict network access to the affected service so it is not reachable from untrusted networks.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Themefusion | Avada (Fusion) Builder | 7.16.1 and earlier | Not 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
- NoneNo account or login is needed.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Scope
- UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
- Confidentiality
- NoneNo data is disclosed.
- 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:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H. Scored by CNA (wordfence.com).
Official description
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.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Improper Control of Generation of Code
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
- Run your code in a jail or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
More Improper Control of Generation of Code vulnerabilities (CWE-94)
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: yes, technical impact: partial).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Other references
Other vulnerabilities in Avada (Fusion) Builder
- 7.2 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 9.1 Critical severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
Recent Improper Control of Generation of Code vulnerabilities
- 10.0 Critical severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 7.2 High severity
- 8.2 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.