CVE-2023-48293
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 XWiki Admin Tools Application provides tools to help the administration of XWiki. Prior to version 4.5.1, a cross-site request forgery vulnerability in the query on XWiki tool allows executing arbitrary database queries on the database of the XWiki installation. Among other things, this allows modifying and deleting all data of the wiki. This could be both used to damage the wiki and to create an account with elevated privileges for the attacker, thus impacting the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the whole XWiki instance. A possible attack vector are comments on the wiki, by embedding an image with wiki syntax like `[[image:path:/xwiki/bin/view/Admin/QueryOnXWiki?query=DELETE%20FROM%20xwikidoc]]`, all documents would be deleted from the database when an admin user views this comment. This has been patched in Admin Tools Application 4.5.1 by adding form token checks. Some workarounds are available. The patch can also be applied manually to the affected pages. Alternatively, if the query tool is not needed, by deleting the document `Admin.SQLToolsGroovy`, all database query tools can be deactivated.
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 analysisThe application can't tell whether a state-changing request was genuinely intended by the user, so an attacker can trick a logged-in victim's browser into making it. That can transfer funds, change settings, or create accounts silently. Remediation is anti-CSRF tokens — or equivalent same-site protections — on every state-changing request.
General guidance for the cross-site request forgery (csrf) class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
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< 4.5.1CVSS 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
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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.
dbcve · scoped4.5.1
Admin Tools Application 4.5.1
- Upgrade the XWiki Admin Tools Application to version 4.5.1 or later to receive the form token fix that mitigates the CSRF vulnerability
- If immediate upgrade is not possible, manually apply the fix by adding form token checks to the affected Admin Tools pages (see commit 45298b4fbcafba6914537dcdd798a1e1385f9e46)
- As an alternative mitigation, delete the document `Admin.SQLToolsGroovy` from the wiki to completely deactivate the database query tool if it is not needed
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-48293 — 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-2023-48293 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