Cloudforms Management EngineApplication · Redhat
CVE-2017-15125
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 · uneditedA flaw was found in CloudForms before 5.9.0.22 in the self-service UI snapshot feature where the name field is not properly sanitized for HTML and JavaScript input. An attacker could use this flaw to execute a stored XSS attack on an application administrator using CloudForms. Please note that CSP (Content Security Policy) prevents exploitation of this XSS however not all browsers support CSP.
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 confidenceA stored XSS vulnerability exists in CloudForms before version 5.9.0.22 in the self-service UI snapshot feature. The name field does not properly sanitize HTML and JavaScript input, allowing an attacker to inject malicious scripts that execute when viewed by application administrators.
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
Cloudforms Management EngineApplication
< 5.9.0.22CVSS 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 CloudForms versionNavigate to the CloudForms management interface and go to About > CFME Version, or access the /about endpoint via API. Alternatively, check the rpm package: rpm -q cfmeAffected if The installed version is below 5.9.0.22
-
Verify self-service UI is enabledCheck if the self-service portal is accessible at /self_service or verify the presence of the MiqRequest and ServiceTemplate catalog roles enabled for any tenantAffected if Self-service UI is enabled and the version is vulnerable (< 5.9.0.22)
-
Inspect existing snapshots for malicious contentQuery the database for snapshots with script tags in the name: SELECT name FROM miq_snapshots WHERE name LIKE '%<script%' OR name LIKE '%javascript:%' OR name LIKE '%onerror=%'Affected if Any snapshot records contain HTML or JavaScript syntax in the name field
A user is affected if their CloudForms version is below 5.9.0.22 AND the self-service UI is enabled, or if malicious snapshot names already exist 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 data5.9.0.22
Upgrade CloudForms to version 5.9.0.22 or later which includes proper input sanitization for the snapshot name field. While CSP provides some protection, it should not be relied upon as some browsers do not fully support it.
Fix this in Cloudforms Management Engine
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-15125 — 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-2017-15125 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