CVE-2026-4765
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 · uneditedStored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the RD Station Conversas chat. The vulnerability resides in the ‘name’ parameter of the initialization process due to improper sanitization of user input. The vulnerability is not limited to self-exploitation: when a support agent joins the conversation, the malicious script also executes in their browser, increasing the impact. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript code within the context of the application.
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 confidenceStored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in RD Station Conversas chat where the 'name' parameter in the initialization process lacks proper input sanitization, allowing injection of malicious JavaScript that persists and executes not only for the submitting user but also when support agents join the conversation.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- A
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
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 RD Station Conversas chat usageCheck if your application or website integrates RD Station's Conversas chat widget by reviewing your frontend JavaScript includes, browser developer tools Network tab for rdstation.com requests, or your codebase for RD Station script tags (typically conversas.js or similar rdstation chat scripts)Affected if RD Station Conversas chat widget is actively loaded in your environment
-
Verify chat initialization includes name parameterInspect the chat widget initialization code in your frontend - look for configuration where users can set or submit their display name before or during chat session establishmentAffected if The chat widget accepts a 'name' or user display name parameter during initialization or conversation start
-
Check for lack of input validation on name fieldAttempt to inject a benign test string containing HTML characters (e.g., <script>alert('test')</script> or <img src=x onerror=alert(1)> in the name field during chat initialization, then examine how the name is rendered in the conversation UIAffected if The injected script tags or event handlers execute or persist in the DOM without encoding or sanitization, indicating the vulnerability is present
Your environment is affected if you use RD Station Conversas chat and the name parameter accepts and persists unsanitized HTML/JavaScript that executes for both the submitting user and support agents viewing the conversation.
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 dataImplement robust input validation and sanitization on the 'name' parameter during initialization, combined with proper output encoding when rendering user-supplied values to prevent script execution.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $3,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-4765 — 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-2026-4765 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