CVE-2008-1299
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedCross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in SolutionSearch.do in ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus 7.0.0 Build 7011 for Windows allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the searchText parameter. NOTE: the provenance of this information is unknown; the details are obtained solely from third party information.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceReflected XSS vulnerability in ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus 7.0.0 where the searchText parameter in SolutionSearch.do is not properly sanitized, allowing attackers to inject arbitrary HTML or JavaScript that executes in victim browsers.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 7.0.0CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Confirm ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus installationLocate the ServiceDesk Plus installation directory and identify the installed version. Common paths include C:\ManageEngine\ServiceDesk or /opt/ManageEngine/ServiceDesk. Check for version.txt, about.html, or the login page which typically displays the version.Affected if The product is not ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus or the version cannot be determined
-
Verify exact version is 7.0.0Compare your installed ServiceDesk Plus version against the affected range. Only version 7.0.0 is vulnerable. Check release notes, version files, or the web interface footer for the build number.Affected if The installed version is not exactly 7.0.0
-
Confirm SolutionSearch.do endpoint is accessibleAccess the ServiceDesk Plus web interface and attempt to reach the SolutionSearch.do endpoint. This is typically found in the solution search or knowledge base functionality.Affected if The SolutionSearch.do endpoint does not exist or is not accessible in the installed version
-
Test searchText parameter for reflected inputSubmit a request to SolutionSearch.do with a benign test value in the searchText parameter (for example, searchText=test123). Examine the HTTP response to see if the value is reflected back in the HTML output without encoding or sanitization.Affected if The searchText parameter value is reflected in the response without proper HTML encoding, indicating lack of input sanitization
You are affected only if you have ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus version 7.0.0 with the SolutionSearch.do endpoint accessible and the searchText parameter reflecting unsanitized input.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataImplement proper input validation and output encoding for the searchText parameter; consider using a vetted XSS prevention library and applying context-aware escaping before rendering user-supplied data in HTML responses.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2008-1299 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2008-1299 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data