CVE-2024-25837
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 in October CMS Bloghub Plugin v1.3.8 and lower allows attackers to execute arbitrary web scripts or HTML via a crafted payload into the Comments section.
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 stored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in the October CMS Bloghub Plugin v1.3.8 and lower. The plugin fails to properly sanitize user input in the Comments section, allowing attackers to inject malicious JavaScript or HTML that executes when other users view the compromised content.
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<= 1.3.8CVSS 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 if October CMS is runningAccess the website's admin panel or check the application for October CMS signatures (look for octobercms references in source code, cookies, or meta tags)Affected if The site runs on October CMS platform
-
Check if Bloghub plugin is installedNavigate to the October CMS backend and inspect the installed plugins list, or check the plugins directory for the Bloghub plugin folderAffected if Bloghub plugin is present in the installation
-
Verify Bloghub plugin versionIn the October CMS backend, view the plugin details for Bloghub to see the installed version number, or check the plugin's version.php or manifest fileAffected if The installed version is 1.3.8 or lower
-
Confirm Comments feature is accessibleNavigate to any blog post that has the Comments section enabled and visible to users (either frontend visitors or backend users)Affected if The Comments feature is enabled and accessible to users who can submit content
-
Inspect comment input handlingSubmit a test comment containing harmless HTML markup (such as <b>test</b> or <script>alert(1)</script>) and then view the comment to see if the markup renders as raw text or executes as HTML/JavaScriptAffected if The submitted HTML/JavaScript is rendered as active code rather than being escaped or removed
A user is affected if they have October CMS with Bloghub plugin version 1.3.8 or lower installed, and the Comments feature is enabled and accessible to users who can submit content.
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 robust input validation and output encoding/escaping on all user-supplied data in the Comments section. Use aallowlist-based validation and ensure contextual output encoding is applied when rendering comments.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-25837 — 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-2024-25837 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