CVE-2022-34560
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 · uneditedA cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in PHPFox v4.8.9 allows attackers to execute arbitrary web scripts or HTML via a crafted payload injected into the History parameter.
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 PHPFox v4.8.9 where the History parameter does not properly sanitize user input before rendering it in the application's response. Attackers can inject malicious JavaScript or HTML payloads that execute in the context of other users' browsers when they access the vulnerable endpoint.
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= 4.8.9CVSS 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
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L
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.
-
Confirm PHPFox installation and versionLocate the PHPFox installation directory and check the version file (typically version.php in the include directory or the admin panel). Look for version 4.8.9 specifically.Affected if The installed PHPFox version is exactly 4.8.9
-
Identify the History parameter endpointLocate the PHP file handling the History parameter in the PHPFox codebase. This is typically in a controller or module that handles user history functionality. Search for code that handles the 'History' GET or POST parameter.Affected if The History parameter is processed by the application and reflected in the response without sanitization
-
Verify output encoding is missingExamine the PHP code that handles the History parameter. Look for functions like htmlspecialchars, htmlentities, or similar encoding functions applied to the History parameter before output. If no encoding is found, the input is reflected raw.Affected if The History parameter value is rendered in the response without proper output encoding (no htmlspecialchars or equivalent)
You are affected if your PHPFox installation is version 4.8.9 and the History parameter endpoint reflects 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 output encoding for the History parameter, and consider deploying Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to provide defense-in-depth against XSS attacks.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-34560 — 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-2022-34560 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