CVE-2025-68643
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 · uneditedAxigen Mail Server before 10.5.57 allows stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) in the handling of the timeFormat account preference parameter. Attackers can exploit this by deploying a multi-stage attack. In the first stage, a malicious JavaScript payload is injected into the timeFormat preference by exploiting a separate vulnerability or using compromised credentials. In the second stage, when the victim logs into the WebMail interface, the unsanitized timeFormat value is loaded from storage and inserted into the DOM, causing the injected script 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 · high confidenceAxigen Mail Server before 10.5.57 contains a stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the timeFormat account preference parameter. Attackers first inject a malicious JavaScript payload into the timeFormat preference (requiring a separate vulnerability or compromised credentials), then when any user logs into the WebMail interface, the unsanitized value is loaded from storage and dynamically inserted into the DOM, triggering script execution in the victim's browser context.
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>= 10.3.0, < 10.5.57>= 10.6.0, < 10.6.26CVSS 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.
-
Identify installed Axigen Mail Server versionRun the command to retrieve the Axigen version (e.g., 'axigen --version' or check the About section in the admin interface)Affected if The installed version is >= 10.3.0 and < 10.5.57, OR >= 10.6.0 and < 10.6.26
-
Confirm WebMail interface is enabledCheck the Axigen service configuration for WebMail listener status, typically via the admin control panel or configuration filesAffected if WebMail interface is active and accessible to users
-
Inspect timeFormat account preference storageQuery the user account preferences storage (database or configuration backend) to locate the timeFormat parameter value for user accountsAffected if The timeFormat field contains unsanitized HTML or JavaScript characters that would execute if rendered
-
Verify timeFormat rendering in WebMailLog into the WebMail interface and examine the DOM/source when the timeFormat preference is loaded to see if unsanitized values are dynamically insertedAffected if The timeFormat value is rendered without proper output encoding, allowing script execution in the browser context
A user is affected if their Axigen version falls within the vulnerable ranges AND the WebMail interface is accessible AND the timeFormat preference is rendered without sanitization.
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 · scoped10.5.5710.6.26
Upgrade to Axigen Mail Server version 10.5.57 or later. Additionally, implement proper input validation and output encoding for the timeFormat parameter to prevent XSS during both storage and rendering.
10.5.57 or 10.6.26 (select based on current version branch - 10.5.x goes to 10.5.57+, 10.6.x goes to 10.6.26+)
- 1. Identify the current installed version of Axigen Mail Server by checking the system or admin interface
- 2. If running version 10.5.x (>=10.3.0, <10.5.57), plan upgrade to version 10.5.57 or later in the 10.5.x branch
- 3. If running version 10.6.x (>=10.6.0, <10.6.26), plan upgrade to version 10.6.26 or later in the 10.6.x branch
- 4. Review Axigen upgrade documentation for your deployment type (Windows/Linux)
- 5. Perform a full backup of configuration and mail data before upgrading
- 6. Execute the upgrade using official Axigen upgrade procedures
- 7. After upgrade, verify the timeFormat preference is properly sanitized when accessed via WebMail
- 8. Confirm the XSS payload no longer executes in the WebMail interface
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-68643 — 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-2025-68643 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