CVE-2023-52430
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 caddy-security plugin 1.1.20 for Caddy allows reflected XSS via a GET request to a URL that contains an XSS payload and begins with either a /admin or /settings/mfa/delete/ substring.
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 confidenceThe caddy-security plugin 1.1.20 for Caddy contains a reflected XSS vulnerability where malicious scripts can be injected via GET request parameters in URLs beginning with /admin or /settings/mfa/delete/ paths. The unsanitized user input is directly reflected in the HTTP response, allowing attacker-controlled JavaScript to execute in the victim's browser.
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= 1.1.20CVSS 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.
-
Verify caddy-security plugin is loadedRun 'caddy list-plugins' or check Caddyfile for 'security' or 'caddy-security' directive in the global configAffected if The plugin appears in plugin list or is configured in Caddyfile
-
Confirm caddy-security versionCheck the plugin version via 'caddy adapt --config Caddyfile --adapter caddyfile' output, or check Caddy's /idk endpoint, or review the caddy-security module configuration in the adapted JSON configAffected if Version is exactly 1.1.20
-
Identify if admin endpoints are accessibleCheck Caddyfile for route or directive matching /admin or /settings/mfa/delete paths, or review the registered URL patterns in the security module configurationAffected if Routes or handlers are registered for paths starting with /admin or /settings/mfa/delete/
-
Test for XSS reflection in affected parametersSend a crafted GET request to /admin?param=<script>alert(1)</script> or /settings/mfa/delete/?param=<script>alert(1)</script> and inspect the response body to see if the script tag is reflected verbatim without encodingAffected if The response contains the raw <script> tag or unencoded user input from the query parameter
You are affected if caddy-security version 1.1.20 is installed AND any endpoint starting with /admin or /settings/mfa/delete/ is accessible and reflects user-supplied query parameters without encoding.
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 dataInput validation and proper output encoding should be applied to all user-supplied parameters before reflecting them in responses. Consider upgrading to a patched version of caddy-security if available, and implement context-aware output encoding for the affected endpoints.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,968.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-52430 — 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-2023-52430 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