CVE-2026-33229
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 · uneditedXWiki Platform is a generic wiki platform offering runtime services for applications built on top of it. Prior to 17.4.8 and 17.10.1, an improperly protected scripting API allows any user with script right to bypass the sandboxing of the Velocity scripting API and execute, e.g., arbitrary Python scripts, allowing full access to the XWiki instance and thereby compromising the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the whole instance. Note that script right already constitutes a high level of access that we don't recommend giving to untrusted users. This vulnerability is fixed in 17.4.8 and 17.10.1.
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 confidenceXWiki Platform prior to 17.4.8 and 17.10.1 contains an improperly protected scripting API that allows users with script right to bypass Velocity sandboxing and execute arbitrary Python scripts, achieving full compromise of the XWiki instance.
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>= 17.0.0, < 17.4.8>= 17.5.0, < 17.10.1CVSS 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
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 XWiki Platform versionLog into XWiki as an administrator, then navigate to the Administration > About page, or check the version from the installation directory in the file xar/org/xwiki-platform-main-application/pom.xml or the application's WAR file metadata.Affected if The version falls within >= 17.0.0, < 17.4.8 or >= 17.5.0, < 17.10.1
-
Verify if users have script rightsNavigate to Administration > Rights > Users and Groups. Locate the 'Script' permission entry. Check if any user or group granted the script right is untrusted or belongs to a low-privilege account.Affected if Any untrusted or low-privilege user has been granted the script right permission
-
Confirm Python scripting is enabledNavigate to Administration > Advanced > Python. Verify if the 'Enable Python' setting is turned on, or check the xwiki.cfg configuration file for the xwiki.render.macrolist.includePython parameter.Affected if Python scripting is enabled on the XWiki instance
-
Check for suspicious Python script executionReview XWiki logs (typically in the logs directory or via the administration interface) for entries containing 'python' or 'PyObject' around script executions, and audit any recently created or modified pages containing {{python}}...{{/python}} macros.Affected if Unauthorised Python script macros are present in wiki content or log entries show Python execution outside expected workflows
A user is affected if their XWiki version is in the vulnerable range (17.0.0-17.4.7 or 17.5.0-17.10.0) AND untrusted users have script rights AND Python scripting is enabled, allowing sandbox bypass via Python execution.
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 · scoped17.4.817.10.1
Upgrade XWiki to version 17.4.8 or 17.10.1 or later to apply the security patch that properly restricts the scripting API.
17.4.8 (for 17.0.0-17.4.x) or 17.10.1 (for 17.5.0-17.10.x)
- 1. Identify the current XWiki version by checking the XWiki administration console or the version.properties file.
- 2. For versions >= 17.0.0 and < 17.4.8: Plan upgrade to version 17.4.8.
- 3. For versions >= 17.5.0 and < 17.10.1: Plan upgrade to version 17.10.1.
- 4. Review the XWiki upgrade guide at https://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Documentation/AdminGuide/Installation/
- 5. Create a complete backup of the XWiki database and filesystem before proceeding.
- 6. Stop the XWiki application server.
- 7. Download the appropriate XWiki WAR file for the target version (17.4.8 or 17.10.1) from https://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Download/
- 8. Replace the existing WAR file and restart the application server.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-33229 — 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-2026-33229 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