CVE-2025-54965
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 · uneditedAn XSS issue was discovered in BAE SOCET GXP before 4.6.0.2. The SOCET GXP Job Status Service does not properly sanitize the job ID parameter before using it in the job status page. An attacker who is able to social engineer a user into clicking a malicious link may be able to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the victim's browser.
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 confidenceThis is a reflected Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in BAE SOCET GXP's Job Status Service. The job ID parameter is not properly sanitized before being rendered in the job status page, allowing injection of arbitrary JavaScript via a malicious URL. An attacker must socially engineer a victim into clicking the crafted link.
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< 4.6.0.2CVSS 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
- 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.
-
Identify BAE SOCET GXP installationLocate the installed BAE SOCET GXP version through the application web interface, installation directory, or system configuration files. The version is typically displayed in the product header, about section, or can be found in version info files within the installation path.Affected if The installed version cannot be determined or is below 4.6.0.2
-
Verify Job Status Service accessibilityConfirm the Job Status Service endpoint is accessible in your environment. This is typically accessed via the web interface where job status can be viewed. Check network configuration to determine if the service is exposed to users.Affected if The Job Status Service is enabled and accessible to users without additional authentication barriers
-
Confirm affected version rangeCompare your installed BAE SOCET GXP version against the affected range of versions prior to 4.6.0.2. Document the exact version number found in step 1.Affected if The installed version is any version prior to 4.6.0.2 (for example 4.5.x, 4.4.x, earlier releases)
-
Check for input sanitization on job ID parameterIf version cannot be determined or if running a version below 4.6.0.2, inspect web server logs or application configuration for evidence of input validation or encoding being applied to the job ID parameter in the Job Status Service.Affected if No input sanitization or output encoding configuration is found for the job ID parameter
You are affected if your installed BAE SOCET GXP version is any release prior to 4.6.0.2 and the Job Status Service is accessible to end users.
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 · scoped4.6.0.2
Upgrade to BAE SOCET GXP version 4.6.0.2 or later, which contains the fix. Until then, implement output encoding on the job ID parameter and validate input against expected patterns.
4.6.0.2
- Obtain the SOCET GXP version 4.6.0.2 or later from BAE Systems official distribution channels
- Review the BAE Systems SOCET GXP upgrade documentation specific to your current version
- Plan the upgrade including backup of current configuration and data
- Execute the upgrade process following BAE Systems' provided upgrade procedures
- After upgrade, verify the Job Status Service is functioning correctly
- Confirm the fix is applied by testing that the job ID parameter is properly sanitized in the job status page
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-54965 — 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-2025-54965 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