CVE-2025-32077
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 · uneditedImproper Input Validation vulnerability in The Wikimedia Foundation Mediawiki - Extension:SimpleCalendar allows Cross-Site Scripting (XSS).This issue affects Mediawiki - Extension:SimpleCalendar: from 1.39 through 1.43.
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 confidenceImproper input validation in the SimpleCalendar extension for MediaWiki allows attackers to inject malicious scripts via unsanitized inputs, resulting in stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) that executes when other users view affected calendar content.
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
- None
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/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.
-
Confirm SimpleCalendar extension is installedCheck your MediaWiki installation for the SimpleCalendar extension by looking in the /extensions/ directory for a SimpleCalendar folder, or by running 'composer show' to list installed packages and look for SimpleCalendar.Affected if The SimpleCalendar extension is present in the MediaWiki installation.
-
Identify the installed SimpleCalendar versionCheck the version file within the SimpleCalendar extension directory (e.g., extension.json, composer.json, or Special:Version in MediaWiki admin panel). Compare this version against any patched version released after the CVE disclosure date.Affected if The installed version is older than the patched version and has not received input validation/sanitization fixes.
-
Determine if user-contributed calendar content existsReview the database tables used by SimpleCalendar (typically tables prefixed with 'simplecal' or similar) or inspect calendar pages created through the extension to see if they contain user-submitted event titles, descriptions, or other fields.Affected if User-generated content is stored and displayed in calendars without sanitization.
-
Inspect the code for input validationExamine the SimpleCalendar source files (especially files handling event creation/editing) for presence of input validation functions (such as htmlspecialchars, Sanitizer methods, or other encoding functions) on user-supplied fields before storage and before output rendering.Affected if User input fields are processed without proper sanitization or output encoding.
The environment is affected if the SimpleCalendar extension is installed, contains a version without the CVE fix, and displays user-supplied content without sanitization.
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 input validation and output encoding/sanitization to all user-supplied data within the SimpleCalendar extension; upgrade to a patched version if available.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-32077 — 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-2025-32077 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