SearchbloxApplication

CVE-2020-10128

MEDIUM · 5.4 CVSS v3.1 Published 2023-09-05
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 9.2.1 or later.
See remediation →
58/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable

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 · unedited
SearchBlox product with version before 9.2.1 is vulnerable to stored cross-site scripting at multiple user input parameters. In SearchBlox products multiple parameters are not sanitized/validate properly which allows an attacker to inject malicious JavaScript.

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 confidence

SearchBlox versions before 9.2.1 contain a stored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability where multiple user input parameters are not properly sanitized or validated, allowing attackers to inject malicious JavaScript that gets persisted and executed in the browsers of other users.

MitigationUpgrade SearchBlox to version 9.2.1 or later to obtain the patch that addresses the improper input validation.

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
SearchbloxApplication
Affected:< 9.2.1

CVSS 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:3.1/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify SearchBlox installation and version
    Locate the SearchBlox installation directory or access the admin interface, then check the version displayed in the admin panel or in version-related files within the installation (such as a version.txt, build.properties, or the admin dashboard)
    Affected if The installed version is found to be lower than 9.2.1
  2. Verify application is accessible and running
    Confirm the SearchBlox web interface is accessible by accessing the application URL (typically on port 8080 or configured port)
    Affected if The SearchBlox application is running and accessible to users
  3. Identify exposed user input parameters
    Examine the SearchBlox interface for features that accept user input and persist it, such as search suggestions configuration, custom field labels, collection names, or admin-defined fields that are displayed to other users
    Affected if User input fields exist that accept and persist data which is later displayed to other users without visible sanitization
  4. Check for existing injected scripts
    Review any stored data within SearchBlox collections or configuration for suspicious script tags (such as <script>, javascript:, or event handlers like onerror, onload) in fields that are displayed to users
    Affected if Malicious script content is found stored in user-controllable fields that render in the browser

You are affected if SearchBlox version is below 9.2.1 and the application exposes user input parameters that persist and display data to other users without proper sanitization.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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.

dbcve · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to 9.2.1 or later
Fixed in 9.2.1
Interim mitigation

Upgrade SearchBlox to version 9.2.1 or later to obtain the patch that addresses the improper input validation.

Recommended fix Moderate confidence

SearchBlox 9.2.1 or later

  1. 1. Back up your current SearchBlox installation and configuration data
  2. 2. Download SearchBlox version 9.2.1 or later from the official vendor source (developer.searchblox.com)
  3. 3. Follow the vendor's documented upgrade procedure to install the new version
  4. 4. After upgrade, verify that the stored XSS vulnerability is remediated by testing the previously vulnerable parameters with malicious JavaScript payloads
  5. 5. Confirm normal SearchBlox functionality is operating as expected

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Fix this in Searchblox Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation2.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
9.0 hours of engineering $1,570
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,512.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-10128 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2020-10128 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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