CVE-2025-46703
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 Encoding or Escaping of Output vulnerability in Hallo Welt! GmbH BlueSpice (Extension:AtMentions) allows Cross-Site Scripting (XSS). This issue affects BlueSpice: from 5 through 5.1.1.
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 confidenceA Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in the AtMentions extension of BlueSpice due to improper encoding or escaping of output. The vulnerability allows attackers to inject malicious scripts through @mentions that are rendered without proper sanitization. This is a stored/reflected XSS issue affecting BlueSpice versions 5.x through 5.1.1.
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>= 5.0, < 5.1.2CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/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.
-
Identify BlueSpice installation versionLocate the installed BlueSpice version number in your system (check admin panel, version file, or composer.json)Affected if The installed version is 5.0 through 5.1.1 (inclusive)
-
Confirm the AtMentions extension is presentVerify that the AtMentions extension is installed in your BlueSpice environmentAffected if The AtMentions extension exists in the installation
-
Verify AtMentions extension is enabledCheck the extension configuration or status in the BlueSpice admin panel to confirm AtMentions is actively enabledAffected if AtMentions is enabled and accessible to users
-
Check user permissions for @mentionsReview which user roles have permission to use the @mention feature in content editingAffected if Regular users (especially unauthenticated or low-privilege users) can create @mentions in content
You are affected if BlueSpice version is >=5.0 and <5.1.2 AND the AtMentions extension is enabled and accessible to users who can inject malicious scripts via @mentions.
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 · scoped5.1.2
Apply the vendor-provided patch for BlueSpice to properly encode output in the AtMentions extension, or upgrade to a patched version. Until then, disable the AtMentions extension or restrict user permissions to minimize exposure.
BlueSpice 5.1.2
- 1. Create a complete backup of the BlueSpice installation including the database
- 2. Consult the official BlueSpice upgrade documentation at en.wiki.bluespice.com for detailed upgrade instructions
- 3. Upgrade BlueSpice to version 5.1.2 or later
- 4. Verify the AtMentions extension is functioning correctly after upgrade
- 5. Test that XSS vulnerabilities in @mentions are no longer reproducible
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-46703 — 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-2025-46703 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