CVE-2023-41159
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 Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability while editing the autoreply file page in Usermin 2.000 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML by editing the forward file manually.
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 Usermin 2.000 where remote attackers can inject arbitrary web script or HTML by manually editing the forward file when configuring the autoreply file page. The malicious payload is stored and executed when other users access the affected page.
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= 2.000CVSS 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.
-
Confirm Usermin installation and versionRun 'usermin --version' or check the package manager (dpkg -l usermin, rpm -qi usermin) to identify the installed Usermin versionAffected if The installed version is exactly 2.000
-
Verify mail forward/autoreply module is enabledCheck /etc/usermin/config or the Usermin configuration for the 'forward' or 'autoreply' module status. Look for 'forward' or 'mail' in the module configuration directories under /etc/usermin/Affected if The forward or autoreply module is enabled in Usermin configuration
-
Inspect forward file configuration for injected scriptsLocate and examine forward files in user home directories (typically ~/.forward or /var/usermin/forward/) and any autoreply configuration files. Search for script tags (<script>), javascript: URIs, or other XSS payloads using grep -r '<script' /var/usermin/forward/Affected if Forward or autoreply configuration files contain suspicious HTML tags or script content that was not intentionally configured by the administrator
-
Review Usermin access logs for the autoreply pageCheck Usermin logs (typically in /var/usermin/logs/ or /var/log/usermin) for access to the forward/autoreply editing interface. Look for unusual patterns or encoded payloads in the request logsAffected if Logs show requests to the forward/autoreply editing functionality with XSS payloads in the parameters
A user is affected if they have Usermin version 2.000 installed with the forward/autoreply module enabled AND malicious script content is found in forward configuration files or logs.
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 context-aware output encoding for all user-supplied content in the autoreply/forward file editing functionality to neutralize malicious scripts.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-41159 — 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-2023-41159 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