CVE-2024-1871
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, which was classified as problematic, was found in SourceCodester Employee Management System 1.0. Affected is an unknown function of the file /process/assignp.php of the component Project Assignment Report. The manipulation of the argument pname leads to cross site scripting. It is possible to launch the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. VDB-254694 is the identifier assigned to this vulnerability.
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 confidenceA reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in SourceCodester Employee Management System 1.0 within the /process/assignp.php file. The 'pname' parameter used in the Project Assignment Report feature does not properly sanitize user input, allowing malicious JavaScript to be injected and executed in victims' browsers when the payload is reflected in the HTTP response.
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= 1.0CVSS 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.
-
Identify installed version of the Employee Management SystemCheck the application documentation, header files, or any version indicator file included with the installation. Look for version=1.0 or similar version markers in the application root or admin panel.Affected if The installed version is Razormist Employee Management System 1.0 exactly.
-
Locate the vulnerable assignp.php fileNavigate to the /process/ directory in the web root and verify that assignp.php exists. This file handles the Project Assignment Report feature.Affected if The file /process/assignp.php exists in the web application directory.
-
Verify the pname parameter is processedAccess the Project Assignment Report feature and submit a test request containing the pname parameter. Capture the HTTP response and inspect whether the submitted value is reflected back in the HTML output without encoding.Affected if The pname parameter value is reflected in the response without HTML entity encoding (e.g., <script> appears as <script> rather than <script>).
If the application is Razormist Employee Management System 1.0 and the /process/assignp.php file reflects the pname parameter without sanitization, the environment is vulnerable to CVE-2024-1871.
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 dataApply output encoding (htmlspecialchars with ENT_QUOTES) to the pname parameter before reflecting it in HTML, and implement input validation to reject unexpected characters. Consider using a Content Security Policy (CSP) as a defense-in-depth measure.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,304.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-1871 — 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-2024-1871 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