CVE-2023-23078
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 · uneditedCross site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Zoho ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus 14 via the comment field when changing the credentials in the Assets.
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 stored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in Zoho ManageEngine ServiceDesk Plus 14 within the comment field when modifying credentials in the Assets module. An attacker can inject malicious JavaScript code through this field, which will be stored and executed in the browsers of other users who access or view the affected Assets credentials.
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= 14.0CVSS 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.
-
Confirm ServiceDesk Plus versionAccess the ServiceDesk Plus admin interface or check the product about page. Look for the exact version number displayed in the Help > About or similar version information section.Affected if The installed version is exactly 14.0 (build 14000)
-
Verify Assets module is accessibleLog into ServiceDesk Plus and navigate to the Assets module. Confirm the module is loaded and accessible in the navigation menu.Affected if The Assets module is present and accessible to the logged-in user
-
Check for credentials functionality in AssetsIn the Assets module, look for a credentials section or credential management feature. This is typically found under Assets > Credentials or a related submenu.Affected if Credentials management functionality exists and is accessible within Assets
-
Locate the comment field in credential modificationOpen any existing credential entry or create a new credential in the Assets module. Look for a comment or notes field associated with the credential.Affected if A comment/notes field exists when modifying or creating credentials
-
Inspect stored content for unescaped charactersUse a browser developer tool or examine how stored comments render. Inject a test string like <script>alert(1)</script> into the comment field, save it, then view the credential again to see if the script tag executes or renders as raw HTML.Affected if The comment field accepts and stores HTML/JavaScript without encoding, and the payload executes when viewed
A user is affected if they run ServiceDesk Plus version 14.0 and have the Assets module with credentials functionality enabled, where the comment field allows stored HTML/JavaScript to execute 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.
From vendor dataApply input validation and output encoding/sanitization to the comment field in the Assets credentials section. If a vendor patch is available, apply it. Otherwise, implement proper HTML encoding of user-supplied content before rendering.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-23078 — 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-2023-23078 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