CVE-2021-4046
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 · uneditedThe m_txtNom y m_txtCognoms parameters in TCMAN GIM v8.01 allow an attacker to perform persistent XSS attacks. This vulnerability could be used to carry out a number of browser-based attacks including browser hijacking or theft of sensitive data.
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 · moderate confidenceThe m_txtNom and m_txtCognoms parameters in TCMAN GIM v8.01 do not properly sanitize user input, allowing attackers to inject malicious JavaScript code that is stored in the application and executed when other users view the affected data (persistent/stored XSS).
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= 8.0.1= 8.01CVSS 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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify TCMAN GIM versionCheck the application help/about page, or query the application's version endpoint, or inspect HTTP headers/server responses for version informationAffected if The installed version is 8.0.1 or 8.01
-
Confirm m_txtNom parameter handlingLocate forms or API endpoints that accept the m_txtNom parameter (typically in user profile, registration, or member management modules). Submit a test value containing harmless HTML/script tags and verify if the application stores and echoes back the raw input.Affected if The submitted script tags appear unmodified in subsequent page loads (indicating no output encoding)
-
Confirm m_txtCognoms parameter handlingLocate forms or API endpoints that accept the m_txtCognoms parameter. Submit a test value containing harmless HTML/script tags and verify if the application stores and echoes back the raw input.Affected if The submitted script tags appear unmodified in subsequent page loads (indicating no output encoding)
-
Check for stored XSS persistenceAfter submitting the test payloads to both parameters, log out and log back in as a different user, or navigate to pages where the affected data is displayed (such as member listings or profile views). Inspect the page source to see if the payload is rendered as raw HTML.Affected if The malicious payload executes or renders as raw HTML when viewed by other users
You are affected if you are running TCMAN GIM version 8.0.1 or 8.01 and the m_txtNom or m_txtCognoms parameters accept and display user input without sanitization or encoding.
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 dataImplement proper input validation and context-aware output encoding for the m_txtNom and m_txtCognoms parameters, and configure Content Security Policy headers to prevent execution of injected scripts.
- 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-2021-4046 — 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-2021-4046 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