CVE-2022-39048
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 XSS vulnerability was identified in the ServiceNow UI page assessment_redirect. To exploit this vulnerability, an attacker would need to persuade an authenticated user to click a maliciously crafted URL. Successful exploitation potentially could be used to conduct various client-side attacks, including, but not limited to, phishing, redirection, theft of CSRF tokens, and use of an authenticated user's browser or session to attack other systems.
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 confidenceA reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in the ServiceNow UI page 'assessment_redirect'. The vulnerability can be exploited by tricking an authenticated user into clicking a specially crafted URL, allowing attackers to execute malicious JavaScript in the victim's browser context.
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= quebec= rome= san_diego= tokyo= utahCVSS 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.
-
Identify ServiceNow versionNavigate to System Diagnostics > System Overview or check the instance login page footer which displays the version. Alternatively, query the 'glide.short.db.version' system property.Affected if Running version Quebec, Rome, San Diego, Tokyo, or Utah (any of the listed affected versions)
-
Verify assessment_redirect page existsAttempt to access the URI /assessment_redirect.do or /nav_to.do?uri=/assessment_redirect.do on your instance. If the page loads without a 404 error, the endpoint exists.Affected if The assessment_redirect page is accessible on the instance
-
Check for URL parameter reflectionAccess the assessment_redirect page with a test parameter such as ?test=alert(1) appended to the URL. Inspect whether the parameter value is reflected verbatim in the page response source.Affected if URL parameter values are reflected in the page without proper encoding or sanitization
-
Review authentication requirementsDetermine if the assessment_redirect page is accessible to authenticated users only or if it permits unauthenticated access. Check ACLs on the assessment_redirect UI page.Affected if The page is accessible to authenticated users who could be tricked into clicking malicious URLs
You are affected if your ServiceNow instance runs Quebec, Rome, San Diego, Tokyo, or Utah AND the assessment_redirect page is accessible to users who could be lured into clicking crafted URLs.
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 dataApply ServiceNow security patches when available; meanwhile, implement URL filtering/warining for suspicious links and educate users about not clicking untrusted URLs.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,880.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-39048 — 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-2022-39048 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