TYPO3CMS
CVE-2015-8759
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 the typoLink function in TYPO3 6.2.x before 6.2.16 and 7.x before 7.6.1 allows remote authenticated editors to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a link field.
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 · high confidenceCross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in TYPO3's typoLink function allows authenticated editors to inject arbitrary JavaScript or HTML through unsanitized link field input in versions 6.2.x before 6.2.16 and 7.x before 7.6.1. This is a stored XSS where malicious payloads persist and execute when other users view affected content.
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
TYPO3CMS
= 6.2= 6.2.0= 6.2.1= 6.2.2= 6.2.3= 6.2.4= 6.2.5= 6.2.6= 6.2.7= 6.2.8= 6.2.9= 6.2.10CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Identify TYPO3 installation versionCheck the Version.php file in the TYPO3 core directory or access the TYPO3 admin panel System Information to retrieve the installed version numberAffected if The installed version is 6.2.x below 6.2.16, or 7.x below 7.6.1
-
Confirm typoLink function usageReview the TYPO3 configuration and templates to determine if the typoLink function is being called, particularly in areas where link field input is processedAffected if The typoLink function is actively used in the installation for generating links from user-provided input
-
Audit link field content in the databaseQuery the database tables that store link field content (typically tt_content or custom content element tables) to inspect stored link data for suspicious script or HTML tagsAffected if Any stored link entries contain unsanitized script tags, JavaScript event handlers, or iframe elements that could execute malicious code when viewed
-
Verify editor-level user accounts existCheck if any user accounts with editor-level privileges exist in the TYPO3 user management systemAffected if Authenticated editor accounts are present who have permission to create or modify content containing link fields
You are affected if your TYPO3 installation runs version 6.2.x below 6.2.16 or 7.x below 7.6.1 AND the typoLink function processes link field input from editor-level users, with potential malicious payloads already stored in the database.
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 dataUpdate TYPO3 to version 6.2.16 / 7.6.1 or later to obtain the patched typoLink function with proper input sanitization.
Fix this in TYPO3
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-8759 — 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-2015-8759 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