dbcve.org
Request TrackerApplication · Bestpractical

CVE-2025-31500

MEDIUM · 6.1 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-05-28
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 5.0.8 or later.
See remediation →
68/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges

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 · unedited
Best Practical RT (Request Tracker) 5.0 through 5.0.7 allows XSS via JavaScript injection in an Asset name.

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 confidence

Best Practical RT (Request Tracker) 5.0 through 5.0.7 contains a stored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the Asset name field. An attacker can inject malicious JavaScript code into an Asset name that will execute when other users view or interact with the asset, potentially allowing session hijacking, credential theft, or defacement.

MitigationImplement input validation and output encoding for the Asset name field to neutralize malicious script payloads. Consider deploying a Content Security Policy (CSP) as an additional defense-in-depth measure.

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
Request TrackerApplication
Affected:>= 5.0.0, < 5.0.8

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
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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Determine your installed RT version
    Check the RT version file (typically /opt/rt5/lib/RT.pm) or look for a VERSION file in the RT installation directory. On systems with package managers, you can also run 'rpm -q rt5' or 'dpkg -l rt5' to see the installed package version.
    Affected if The installed version is 5.0.0 through 5.0.7 (inclusive)
  2. Confirm the Assets extension is enabled
    Check your RT_SiteConfig.pm file (commonly in /etc/request-tracker5/RT_SiteConfig.pm or /opt/rt5/etc/RT_SiteConfig.pm) for the @Plugins configuration. Look for 'RT::Extension::Assets' in the @Plugins array.
    Affected if The Assets extension appears in @Plugins and is loaded by RT
  3. Identify any existing Assets in the system
    Query the Assets table in your RT database, or use the RT command-line interface: 'rt assets list' or access the Assets portlet in the web interface under Tools > Assets.
    Affected if Any Asset records exist in the system with user-supplied names
  4. Inspect Asset names for potential injection payloads
    Review the Name field values of existing Assets in the database. You can query the database directly (e.g., SELECT Name FROM Assets) or export the asset list to examine the name values for unusual characters or patterns.
    Affected if Any Asset name contains HTML, JavaScript, or script-related tags such as <script>, javascript:, onerror, onload, or similar XSS vectors

You are affected if your RT version is 5.0.0 through 5.0.7, the Assets extension is enabled, and any Asset name contains suspicious script injection characters or patterns.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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.

dbcve · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to 5.0.8 or later
Fixed in 5.0.8
Interim mitigation

Implement input validation and output encoding for the Asset name field to neutralize malicious script payloads. Consider deploying a Content Security Policy (CSP) as an additional defense-in-depth measure.

Recommended fix High confidence

RT 5.0.8

  1. 1. Back up your current RT database and configuration files before upgrading.
  2. 2. Review the RT upgrade guide at docs.bestpractical.com for your specific upgrade path.
  3. 3. Download Request Tracker version 5.0.8 or later from the official Best Practical website or repository.
  4. 4. Stop the RT web server and any background workers.
  5. 5. Install the new RT packages using your system's package manager (e.g., dpkg, rpm) or by running make install from source.
  6. 6. Run the RT upgrade scripts to migrate the database schema (typically: make upgrade-database).
  7. 7. Review and update any custom configurations in RT_SiteConfig.pm if needed.
  8. 8. Restart the RT web server and background workers.
Caveat Review RT 5.0.8 release notes for any behavior changes; minor version upgrades in RT typically have minimal breaking changes but custom extensions may require testing.

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Fix this in Request Tracker Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation2.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing2.0 h
  • Review / QA1.0 h
9.0 hours of engineering $1,600
Get the upgrade done

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-31500 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-31500 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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