CVE-2025-65590
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 · uneditednopCommerce 4.90.0 is vulnerable to Cross Site Scripting (XSS) via the Blog posts functionality in the Content Management area.
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 confidencenopCommerce 4.90.0 contains a stored Cross Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the Blog posts feature within the Content Management section of the admin panel. Unsanitized user input in blog post content allows injection of malicious scripts that execute when other users view the blog entries.
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= 4.90.0CVSS 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.
-
Verify nopCommerce versionAccess the admin dashboard and navigate to Configuration > Settings > General Settings, or check the version number in the application startup/footer. Alternatively, check the assemblies or application files for version metadata.Affected if The installed version is exactly 4.90.0
-
Confirm Blog posts feature is accessibleLog in to the nopCommerce admin panel and navigate to Content Management > Blog Posts to confirm the feature is present and accessible.Affected if The Blog posts feature exists and the user has access to create or edit blog posts
-
Inspect existing blog posts for suspicious contentNavigate to Content Management > Blog Posts and review all blog post entries. Examine the Title, Body, and Introduction fields for any unexpected script tags, HTML elements, or encoded characters that may indicate injected malicious code.Affected if Any blog post contains unsanitized script tags, javascript: URIs, or other XSS payloads in content fields
-
Check blog post rendering outputView a blog post on the public-facing side of the website. Use browser developer tools to inspect the HTML source of the rendered blog content and verify whether user-supplied content is being output encoded or rendered as raw HTML.Affected if User input in blog posts is rendered without HTML encoding, allowing script execution
A user is affected if they are running nopCommerce version 4.90.0 and have the Blog posts feature enabled with any blog entries containing unsanitized user input.
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 proper input validation and output encoding to all blog post content fields. The vendor should release a patch that sanitizes user-supplied content before rendering.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 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 $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-65590 — 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-2025-65590 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