CVE-2019-19325
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 · uneditedSilverStripe through 4.4.x before 4.4.5 and 4.5.x before 4.5.2 allows Reflected XSS on the login form and custom forms. Silverstripe Forms allow malicious HTML or JavaScript to be inserted through non-scalar FormField attributes, which allows performing XSS (Cross-Site Scripting) on some forms built with user input (Request data). This can lead to phishing attempts to obtain a user's credentials or other sensitive user input.
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 confidenceReflected XSS vulnerability in SilverStripe CMS through 4.4.x and 4.5.x allows attackers to inject malicious HTML or JavaScript via non-scalar FormField attributes on login forms and custom forms built with user request data.
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>= 4.4.0, < 4.4.5>= 4.5.0, < 4.5.2CVSS 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.
-
Locate SilverStripe installationCheck for the presence of vendor/silverstripe/framework or composer.json in your web root directory.Affected if SilverStripe is not installed on this system.
-
Determine installed SilverStripe versionRun 'composer show silverstripe/framework' or inspect the version entry in composer.lock, or check the Version file in framework/src.Affected if The installed version is >= 4.4.0 and < 4.4.5, OR >= 4.5.0 and < 4.5.2.
-
Identify if login forms use non-scalar attributesSearch source code for FormField::create() or Form::fields() calls where array or object values are passed from $request->params() or $_GET/$_POST. In particular, look for attributes like 'extraMeta', 'cssClass', or custom attributes set from request data.Affected if Login forms or custom forms pass non-scalar FormField attributes derived from user request data.
-
Check custom form implementationsSearch for custom Form subclasses that populate FormField attributes using request parameters or user-supplied data. Look for patterns like $field->setAttribute() with request data.Affected if Custom forms built with user request data are used to populate non-scalar FormField attributes.
You are affected if your SilverStripe version is 4.4.0 through 4.4.4 or 4.5.0 through 4.5.1 AND your login or custom forms use non-scalar FormField attributes populated from user request data.
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 data4.4.54.5.2
Upgrade SilverStripe to version 4.4.5, 4.5.2, or later to patch the vulnerability. Validate and sanitize all non-scalar FormField attributes before rendering.
- 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-2019-19325 — 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-2019-19325 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