CVE-2023-29052
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 · uneditedUsers were able to define disclaimer texts for an upsell shop dialog that would contain script code that was not sanitized correctly. Attackers could lure victims to user accounts with malicious script code and make them execute it in the context of a trusted domain. We added sanitization for this content. No publicly available exploits are known.
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 confidenceThis is a stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the upsell shop dialog feature where user-defined disclaimer text was not properly sanitized before display, allowing injection of malicious script code that executes in the context of a trusted domain.
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= 7.10.6CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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 the installed Ox App Suite versionCheck the installed package version via package manager (dpkg, rpm) or consult the admin panel for the Ox App Suite version numberAffected if The installed version is exactly 7.10.6
-
Verify the upsell shop dialog feature is accessibleAccess the upsell shop dialog in the user interface or check the configuration files for upsell feature enablement (typically in /opt/open-xchange/etc or equivalent config directory)Affected if The upsell shop dialog feature is enabled and accessible to users
-
Inspect stored disclaimer text contentExamine the configuration or database where upsell shop disclaimer text is stored. Look for the disclaimer text field in the upsell shop settings configuration file or database tableAffected if Custom disclaimer text has been configured and stored in the system
-
Check for XSS payloads in disclaimer contentReview the stored disclaimer text for any script tags, event handlers (onclick, onerror, etc.), or other JavaScript injection patternsAffected if The disclaimer text contains unescaped HTML or script execution code
A user is affected if running exactly version 7.10.6 with the upsell shop dialog enabled and if the disclaimer text contains unsanitized script injection content.
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 the vendor patch that adds proper sanitization for disclaimer text content in the upsell shop dialog to prevent script injection.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-29052 — 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-2023-29052 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