CVE-2022-25238
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 silverstripe/framework through 4.10.0 allows XSS, inside of script tags that can can be added to website content via XHR by an authenticated CMS user if the cwp-core module is not installed on the sanitise_server_side contig is not set to true in project code.
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 confidenceSilverstripe CMS versions through 4.10.0 contain a stored XSS vulnerability where authenticated CMS users can inject malicious scripts into website content via XHR requests. The vulnerability is exploitable when the cwp-core module is absent AND the sanitise_server_side configuration is not enabled in the project.
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<= 4.10.0CVSS 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.
-
Check Silverstripe Framework versionLocate the silverstripe/framework package in your composer.json or vendor/composer/installed.json and note the installed version numberAffected if version is 4.10.0 or lower
-
Verify cwp-core module presenceSearch for cwp-core in your project's composer.json dependencies or check if the cwp-core directory exists in your vendor folderAffected if cwp-core is not listed as a dependency or the module directory is missing
-
Inspect sanitise_server_side configurationSearch your project's YAML configuration files (typically in app/_config or mysite/_config directories) for the sanitise_server_side settingAffected if sanitise_server_side is not set to true or is absent entirely
A user is affected if their Silverstripe Framework version is 4.10.0 or lower AND the cwp-core module is absent AND sanitise_server_side is not enabled in the configuration.
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 · scopedEither install the cwp-core module OR set sanitise_server_side to true in the project configuration YAML to enable server-side sanitization of user-submitted content.
Silverstripe Framework 4.10.1 or later (latest stable 4.x release)
- 1. Back up your current Silverstripe project including database and all files
- 2. Update the silverstripe/framework dependency in your composer.json to version 4.10.1 or later: `composer require silverstripe/framework:^4.10.1 --no-update`
- 3. Run `composer update silverstripe/framework` to install the fixed version
- 4. Clear the Silverstripe cache by deleting the cache directory (usually `var/cache` or `silverstripe-cache`)
- 5. Run `dev/build` to rebuild the database schema
- 6. Test that your CMS functionality works correctly after the upgrade
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,376.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-25238 — 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-2022-25238 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