CVE-2023-40153
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 · uneditedThe affected product is vulnerable to a cross-site scripting vulnerability, which could allow an attacker to access the web application to introduce arbitrary Java Script by injecting an XSS payload into the 'hostname' parameter of the vulnerable software.
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 confidenceThis is a reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in a web application where user-supplied input to the 'hostname' parameter is not properly sanitized or encoded before being reflected back in the application's response. An attacker can craft a malicious URL containing arbitrary JavaScript code that will execute in the victim's browser when they access the link.
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= 20130114CVSS 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 Dexma Dexgate installation and versionLocate the installed Dexgate application or access its web interface and determine the software version numberAffected if The installed version is exactly 20130114
-
Confirm the hostname parameter existsAccess the application's web interface and locate any functionality that accepts a 'hostname' parameter (such as in a URL query string or form input)Affected if The application accepts a hostname parameter in any request
-
Test for reflected XSS in hostname parameterCraft a test URL with a benign XSS payload in the hostname parameter (e.g., hostname=<script>alert(1)</script>) and request it, then inspect the response to see if the payload is reflected unencodedAffected if The hostname parameter value is reflected in the response without HTML encoding (visible as raw script tags)
-
Verify the vulnerability is reflected, not storedSubmit the test payload and observe whether the response immediately reflects it (reflected XSS) rather than requiring a page reload or admin action (stored XSS)Affected if The malicious hostname value is immediately reflected back in the application's response page
You are affected if Dexma Dexgate version 20130114 is running and the hostname parameter reflects unencoded input in the response.
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 robust input validation for the hostname parameter combined with context-appropriate output encoding when the value is rendered. Additionally, deploy Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to provide defense-in-depth against XSS attacks.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,848.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-40153 — 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-2023-40153 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