CVE-2025-0424
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 · uneditedIn the "bestinformed Web" application, some user input was not properly sanitized. This leads to multiple authenticated stored cross-site scripting vulnerabilities. An authenticated attacker is able to compromise the sessions of other users on the server by injecting JavaScript code into their session using an "Authenticated Stored Cross-Site Scripting". Those other users might have more privileges than the attacker, enabling a form of horizontal movement.
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 'bestinformed Web' application suffers from authenticated stored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities due to insufficient input sanitization. An authenticated attacker can inject malicious JavaScript into application input fields, which then executes in the browsers of other users who view the injected content, enabling session hijacking and potential horizontal privilege escalation.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- P
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
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 bestinformed Web installationSearch for the application in your environment by checking running web services, installed software lists, or documentation that references 'bestinformed Web'Affected if The application is present in your environment
-
Determine the installed versionCheck the application's about page, version information in the admin panel, or examine application files/binary metadata for the version numberAffected if The version cannot be verified or is older than any available patch
-
Verify authentication is enabledConfirm that user authentication is required to access the application and that attacker could obtain valid credentialsAffected if Authenticated users exist and can access input functionality
-
Inspect input fields for sanitizationAs an authenticated user, examine application input fields (forms, profile fields, content submission areas) and check if special characters are encoded or filtered when submitted and displayed backAffected if Input fields accept and store unsanitized HTML or JavaScript characters that render unescaped in other users' browsers
-
Check for existing malicious contentReview stored content in the application's database or content management system for suspicious script tags, event handlers, or JavaScript URIs that may indicate exploitationAffected if Stored content contains unsanitized XSS payloads that execute in browsers
You are affected if bestinformed Web is running in your environment and input fields allow storage of unsanitized script content that executes when viewed by other users.
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 for all user-supplied data, and configure Content-Security-Policy headers to mitigate XSS execution.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,680.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-0424 — 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-2025-0424 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