CVE-2023-3945
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 vulnerability was found in phpscriptpoint Lawyer 1.6. It has been classified as problematic. This affects an unknown part of the file search.php. The manipulation leads to cross site scripting. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The identifier VDB-235401 was assigned to this vulnerability. NOTE: The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
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 cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in the search.php file of phpscriptpoint Lawyer 1.6. The vulnerability allows attackers to inject malicious scripts through unsanitized user input, likely in a search parameter that gets reflected back in the page output without proper encoding.
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= 1.6CVSS 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.
-
Confirm phpscriptpoint Lawyer installationLocate the Lawyer script on your web server. Check your web document root for a directory or file structure containing 'lawyer' or 'phpscriptpoint' in the path.Affected if The software is present on the server and is the phpscriptpoint Lawyer application.
-
Identify installed versionInspect any version files, readme files, or admin panels within the phpscriptpoint Lawyer installation. Look for a version identifier of 1.6.Affected if The installed version is exactly 1.6.
-
Locate search.phpFind the search.php file within the Lawyer installation directory structure. Common locations include the root directory or a scripts subdirectory.Affected if search.php exists in the application.
-
Verify search functionality is accessibleAttempt to access the search.php file via HTTP/HTTPS request or check if it is enabled in the application routing.Affected if The search functionality is accessible to users without authentication restrictions.
Your environment is affected if you have phpscriptpoint Lawyer version 1.6 installed with accessible search functionality.
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 dataImplement proper input validation and output encoding/escaping on all user-supplied data in search.php. Consider adding a Content Security Policy (CSP) header as a defense-in-depth measure. Since the vendor did not respond, organizations using this software should apply these fixes independently or deploy a WAF rule to mitigate the XSS.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 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 $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-3945 — 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-2023-3945 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