CVE-2022-43711
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 · uneditedInteractive Forms (IAF) in GX Software XperienCentral versions 10.29.1 until 10.33.0 was vulnerable to cross site scripting attacks (XSS) because the CSP header uses eval() in the script-src.
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 confidenceInteractive Forms (IAF) in GX Software XperienCentral versions 10.29.1 through 10.33.0 contains a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability caused by a misconfigured Content Security Policy (CSP) header that permits eval() in the script-src directive, allowing arbitrary JavaScript execution.
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>= 10.29.1, <= 10.33.0CVSS 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
- 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 XperienCentral installationCheck if GX Software XperienCentral is running in your environment by reviewing running web applications, checking for XperienCentral processes, or accessing the admin/about page of your web application.Affected if XperienCentral is not present in your environment
-
Determine installed XperienCentral versionLocate the version number of your XperienCentral installation. This is typically found in the admin interface under 'About' or 'System Information', or in version/configuration files within the application deployment directory.Affected if The installed version is greater than or equal to 10.29.1 and less than or equal to 10.33.0
-
Inspect Content Security Policy headerCapture an HTTP response from your XperienCentral application using browser developer tools (Network tab), curl (curl -I https://your-site), or a proxy tool. Examine the Content-Security-Policy header for the script-src directive.Affected if The script-src directive contains 'eval' or 'unsafe-eval', which permits arbitrary JavaScript execution via eval()
-
Verify CSP eval() permission is presentReview the full CSP header value and confirm whether 'unsafe-eval' or 'eval' appears within the script-src directive, which is the vulnerable configuration.Affected if The CSP header allows eval() in script-src, meaning the environment is affected by this vulnerability
Your environment is affected if XperienCentral version 10.29.1 through 10.33.0 is installed AND the Content-Security-Policy header permits eval() in the script-src directive.
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 dataUpgrade XperienCentral to version 10.33.0 or later, or if already on 10.33.0 verify the CSP header is properly configured to remove eval() from script-src and follow CSP best practices.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-43711 — 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-2022-43711 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