CVE-2021-23054
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 · uneditedOn version 16.x before 16.1.0, 15.1.x before 15.1.4, 14.1.x before 14.1.4.4, and all versions of 13.1.x, 12.1.x, and 11.6.x, a reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in the resource information page for authenticated users when a full webtop is configured on the BIG-IP APM system. Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated.
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 reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in the F5 BIG-IP APM system's resource information page when a full webtop is configured. Authenticated users can inject malicious scripts through unsanitized input that gets reflected back and executed in their browser session.
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>= 11.6.1, <= 11.6.5>= 12.1.0, <= 12.1.6>= 13.1.0, <= 13.1.4>= 14.1.0, < 14.1.4.4>= 15.1.0, < 15.1.4>= 16.0.0, < 16.0.1CVSS 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.
-
Verify BIG-IP APM is installedLog into the BIG-IP command line and run `tmsh show /sys module` or check the installed modules to confirm the Access Policy Manager (APM) module is present.Affected if APM module is not installed, the system is not affected by this specific vulnerability.
-
Check APM version against affected rangesRun `tmsh show /sys version` or use the web management console to view the BIG-IP version. Compare the installed APM version to the affected ranges: 11.6.1-11.6.5, 12.1.0-12.1.6, 13.1.0-13.1.4, 14.1.0-14.1.4.3, 15.1.0-15.1.3, or 16.0.0-16.0.0.x.Affected if The installed version falls within any of the listed affected version ranges.
-
Confirm full webtop configuration existsAccess the BIG-IP web management console, navigate to Access Policy > Webtops, or use the equivalent tmsh command to list configured webtops. Identify whether any webtop is configured with the 'full' type rather than 'lite' or other types.Affected if A full webtop resource is configured in the APM policy. The vulnerability only applies when a full webtop is in use.
-
Inspect resource information page for unsanitized parametersAs an authenticated APM user with webtop access, navigate to the resource information page within the full webtop interface. Examine URL parameters for any user-supplied input that gets reflected back in the response without encoding.Affected if URL parameters in the resource information page reflect user input without proper HTML encoding, allowing script injection.
The environment is affected if BIG-IP APM is installed with a version in the affected ranges AND a full webtop is configured, exposing the resource information page to reflected XSS.
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.
dbcve · scoped14.1.4.415.1.416.0.1
Upgrade BIG-IP APM to version 16.1.0 or later, 15.1.4 or later, or 14.1.4.4 or later. Alternatively, implement input validation and output encoding on the affected webtop resource information endpoint.
Upgrade to 14.1.4.4+ (if on 14.1.x), 15.1.4+ (if on 15.1.x), or 16.1.0+ (if on 16.x). For 11.6.x, 12.1.x, and 13.1.x branches, upgrade to the next stable branch that has a fix.
- Identify the current BIG-IP APM version using 'tmsh show sys version' or the web management console
- Determine the appropriate upgrade path based on current version (11.6.x, 12.1.x, 13.1.x, or 14.1.x)
- Review F5 upgrade guides and release notes for the target version to ensure compatibility
- Back up the current configuration using 'tmsh save sys config'
- Upgrade to the fixed version: 14.1.4.4 or later, 15.1.4 or later, or 16.1.0 or later
- After upgrade, verify the APM module is functioning correctly
- Confirm the fix by checking that the resource information page no longer reflects unsanitized input
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-23054 — 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-2021-23054 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