CVE-2023-6422
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 has been discovered in BigProf Online Clinic Management System 2.2, which does not sufficiently encode user-controlled input, resulting in persistent XSS through /clinic/patients_view.php, in the FirstRecord parameter. Exploitation of this vulnerability could allow an attacking user to store dangerous JavaScript payloads on the system that will be triggered when the page loads.
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 · high confidenceStored XSS vulnerability in BigProf Online Clinic Management System 2.2 at /clinic/patients_view.php via the FirstRecord parameter. User-controlled input is not properly sanitized or encoded before being stored and rendered in the page, allowing malicious JavaScript to execute when the page loads.
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= 2.2CVSS 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 BigProf Online Clinic Management System installationLook for the /clinic/patients_view.php file in your web root directory, or check your application directory structure for the BigProf Online Clinic Management System.Affected if The application and specifically patients_view.php file are present in your environment.
-
Identify the installed versionCheck your application documentation, version file, or any version metadata within the application for '2.2' or look at the software release information.Affected if The installed version is exactly 2.2.
-
Verify the FirstRecord parameter handlingExamine the patients_view.php source code and locate where the FirstRecord parameter is processed, specifically looking for any echo or output statements that render this parameter.Affected if The FirstRecord parameter is used in the page output without proper sanitization or encoding.
-
Inspect for XSS protection mechanismsSearch the patients_view.php file for functions like htmlspecialchars, htmlentities, or any input sanitization/validation logic applied to the FirstRecord parameter before output.Affected if No sanitization or encoding functions are found applied to the FirstRecord parameter before it is rendered in the page.
You are affected if you have BigProf Online Clinic Management System version 2.2 running with the patients_view.php file and the FirstRecord parameter is not sanitized before display.
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 the FirstRecord parameter in patients_view.php. Additionally, implement a Content Security Policy (CSP) header as defense-in-depth.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing1.0 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 $1,424.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-6422 — 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-2023-6422 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