CVE-2023-22722
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 · uneditedGLPI is a Free Asset and IT Management Software package. Versions 9.4.0 and above, prior to 10.0.6 are subject to Cross-site Scripting. An attacker can persuade a victim into opening a URL containing a payload exploiting this vulnerability. After exploited, the attacker can make actions as the victim or exfiltrate session cookies. This issue is patched in version 10.0.6.
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 confidenceGLPI versions 9.4.0 through 10.0.5 contain a stored or reflected Cross-site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability. An attacker crafts a malicious URL containing a JavaScript payload that, when opened by a victim, executes in the context of the victim's browser session. This allows the attacker to perform actions as the victim or steal session cookies.
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>= 9.4.0, < 9.5.12>= 10.0.0, < 10.0.6CVSS 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.
-
Locate GLPI version fileCheck the version.php file in the GLPI root directory (e.g., /glpi/version.php) or look for a VERSION constant in the codebase. Alternatively, query the database: SELECT value FROM glpi_config WHERE name='version';Affected if The version file exists but the version number cannot be determined or is not visible
-
Compare installed version against affected rangesRead the version number from version.php or database query. Compare it to the affected ranges: 9.4.0 to 9.5.11, or 10.0.0 to 10.0.5Affected if The installed version is 9.4.0 through 9.5.11, or 10.0.0 through 10.0.5 (exclusive of 9.5.12 and 10.0.6)
-
Identify if GLPI is publicly accessibleDetermine if the GLPI instance is exposed to untrusted networks or the internet. Check network configuration, firewall rules, or reverse proxy settings that expose the GLPI web rootAffected if GLPI is accessible from untrusted networks without additional authentication layers
-
Check for custom input sanitizationReview any custom plugins, themes, or local modifications that may handle user input. Examine the codebase for instances of echo, print, or HTML rendering of unsanitized user-supplied parameters (such as $_GET, $_POST, or $_REQUEST values)Affected if Custom code or plugins handle user input without proper sanitization (htmlspecialchars, strip_tags, or similar functions)
-
Review Content Security Policy headersInspect HTTP response headers from GLPI for Content-Security-Policy or X-Content-Security-Policy headers. Check web server configuration (Apache .htaccess, Nginx config) for CSP directivesAffected if No CSP headers are configured, or existing CSP allows inline scripts (unsafe-inline)
You are affected if your GLPI version falls within 9.4.0-9.5.11 or 10.0.0-10.0.5 and the application processes user input without sanitization.
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 · scoped9.5.1210.0.6
Upgrade GLPI to version 10.0.6 or later. If immediate upgrade is not feasible, implement input validation/sanitization on affected endpoints and configure Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to mitigate XSS execution.
10.0.6
- Verify current GLPI version by accessing the application or checking version file
- Backup the current GLPI installation and database before proceeding
- Download GLPI version 10.0.6 from the official GitHub repository or release page
- Extract the new version files to replace the existing installation
- Update database schema if required by running the upgrade script
- Clear any cached data and session files
- Verify the upgrade was successful by logging into the application
- Test that the XSS vulnerability is no longer exploitable by attempting the reported payload
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,416.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-22722 — 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-2023-22722 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