CVE-2025-34315
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 · uneditedIPFire versions prior to 2.29 (Core Update 198) contain a stored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability that allows an authenticated attacker to inject arbitrary JavaScript code through the REMOTELOG_ADDR parameter when updating the remote syslog server address. When a user updates the Remote logging Syslog server, the application issues an HTTP POST request to /cgi-bin/logs.cgi/config.dat and the server address is provided in the REMOTELOG_ADDR parameter. The value of this parameter is stored and later rendered in the web interface without proper sanitation or encoding, allowing injected scripts to execute in the context of other users who view the affected configuration page.
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 confidenceIPFire before Core Update 198 contains a stored XSS vulnerability in the remote syslog configuration. The REMOTELOG_ADDR parameter submitted to /cgi-bin/logs.cgi/config.dat is stored without sanitization and rendered unsafely when users view the configuration page, allowing injected JavaScript to execute in victim browsers.
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< 2.29= 2.29CVSS 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.
-
Check IPFire versionLog into the IPFire web UI and navigate to the System page, or run 'rpm -q ipfire' via shell to retrieve the installed version numberAffected if The installed version is 2.29 or any version lower than 2.29 (Core Update 198)
-
Verify remote syslog is configuredAccess /cgi-bin/logs.cgi in the web UI or inspect the configuration file /cgi-bin/logs.cgi/config.dat for the REMOTELOG_ADDR parameterAffected if REMOTELOG_ADDR is present and contains any value - the parameter exists in the configuration
-
Inspect REMOTELOG_ADDR for suspicious contentView the value of REMOTELOG_ADDR in the remote syslog configuration page or config file - look for HTML tags, script tags, or JavaScript event handlersAffected if The REMOTELOG_ADDR field contains raw HTML, <script> tags, javascript: URIs, or HTML event attributes like onload/onerror
-
Check browser developer consoleWhen viewing the Logs configuration page in a browser, open the developer console (F12) and check for any JavaScript errors or executed scripts related to the REMOTELOG_ADDR fieldAffected if Unexpected JavaScript executes or console errors appear when the configuration page loads
You are affected if running IPFire version 2.29 or earlier AND the remote syslog feature has been configured with a REMOTELOG_ADDR value containing unsanitized script 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.
dbcve · scoped2.29
Upgrade to IPFire version 2.29 (Core Update 198) or later. Until then, limit administrative access to trusted users and monitor for suspicious activity.
IPFire 2.29 (Core Update 198) or later
- 1. Backup your current IPFire configuration before making any changes.
- 2. Access the IPFire web interface.
- 3. Navigate to the System section and select Update or use the command-line updater.
- 4. Update to IPFire version 2.29 (Core Update 198) or later which contains the fix for this vulnerability.
- 5. After update completion, verify the system is running the patched version by checking the web interface or running 'ipfire --version'.
- 6. Clear browser cache to ensure no stale JavaScript is loaded.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-34315 — 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-2025-34315 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