CVE-2025-41384
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 · uneditedCross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability reflected in SuiteCRM v7.14.1. This vulnerability allows an attacker to execute JavaScript code by modifying the HTTP Referer header to include an arbitrary domain with malicious JavaScript code at the end. The server will attempt to block the arbitrary domain but will allow the JavaScript code to execute.
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 confidenceReflected XSS vulnerability in SuiteCRM v7.14.1 where the HTTP Referer header is reflected in server responses without proper sanitization. The application attempts to block arbitrary domains but fails to sanitize malicious JavaScript code appended to the Referer value, allowing it to execute in user 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= 7.14.1CVSS 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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Verify SuiteCRM versionCheck the installed SuiteCRM version by viewing the version.php file in the root directory or accessing the admin 'About' section. Look for a file typically named version.php or check the CRM system information panel.Affected if The installed version is exactly 7.14.1 - this is the only affected version per the CVE
-
Identify Referer header reflection pointsSend a crafted HTTP request with a test Referer header (e.g., Referer: http://example.com/test<script>alert(1)</script>) to various SuiteCRM endpoints and inspect the HTTP response body to see if the Referer value appears unmodified in any part of the response.Affected if The Referer header value is reflected in any server response without HTML encoding or sanitization - this confirms the vulnerable behavior exists in the environment
-
Check application server logs for Referer loggingReview web server access logs (Apache/Nginx) or application logs for entries where the Referer header is being logged or processed. Look for log entries that contain the full Referer URL.Affected if The application logs or reflects the raw Referer header in any output, indicating the unsanitized data flow that enables the XSS vulnerability
You are affected if your SuiteCRM installation is version 7.14.1 AND your application reflects the HTTP Referer header in responses without sanitization, which would allow the XSS payload to execute in user browsers.
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 dataUpgrade to a patched version of SuiteCRM if available, or implement input validation/sanitization on the Referer header server-side before reflecting it in responses, ensuring all user-controlled input is properly HTML-encoded.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,544.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-41384 — 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-2025-41384 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