Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.52% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2023
CVE-2023-37901High confidence
Cross-Site-Scripting via confirmation prompts
indico · indico
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-FMQQ-25X9-C6HM ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
5.4MediumCVSS 3.1
Scheduled
Patch availableMedium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityMedium→Operational priority:Medium, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs indico indico and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Patch available01
What, why and how
Indico is an open source a general-purpose, web based event management tool. There is a Cross-Site-Scripting vulnerability in confirmation prompts commonly used when deleting content from Indico. Exploitation requires someone with at least submission privileges (such as a speaker) and then someone else to attempt to delete this content. Considering that event organizers may want to delete suspicious-looking content when spotting it, there is a non-negligible risk of such an attack to succeed. The risk of this could be further increased when combined with some some social engineering pointing the victim towards this content. Users need to update to Indico 3.2.6 as soon as possible. See the docs for instructions on how to update. Users who cannot upgrade should only let trustworthy users manage categories, create events or upload materials ("submission" privileges on a contribution/event). This should already be the case in a properly-configured setup when it comes to category/event management. Note that a conference doing a Call for Abstracts actively invites external speakers (who the organizers may not know and thus cannot fully trust) to submit content, hence the need to update to a a fixed version ASAP in particular when using such workflows.
What
Indico is an open source a general-purpose, web based event management tool. There is a Cross-Site-Scripting vulnerability in confirmation prompts commonly used when deleting content from Indico. Exploitation requires someone with at least submission privileges (such as a speaker) and then someone else to attempt to delete this content. Considering that event organizers may want to delete suspicious-looking content when spotting it, there is a non-negligible risk of such an attack to succeed. The risk of this could be further increased when combined with some some social engineering pointing the victim towards this content. Users need to update to Indico 3.2.6 as soon as possible. See the docs for instructions on how to update. Users who cannot upgrade should only let trustworthy users manage categories, create events or upload materials ("submission" privileges on a contribution/event). This should already be the case in a properly-configured setup when it comes to category/event management. Note that a conference doing a Call for Abstracts actively invites external speakers (who the organizers may not know and thus cannot fully trust) to submit content, hence the need to update to a a fixed version ASAP in particular when using such workflows.
Why
Attacker-controlled content can reach a browser as executable script without sufficient output encoding or sanitisation.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
Indico is an open source a general-purpose, web based event management tool. There is a Cross-Site-Scripting vulnerability in confirmation prompts commonly used when deleting content from Indico. Exploitation requires someone with at least submission privileges (such as a speaker) and then someone else to attempt to delete this content. Considering that event organizers may want to delete suspicious-looking content when spotting it, there is a non-negligible risk of such an attack to succeed. The risk of this could be further increased when combined with some some social engineering pointing the victim towards this content. Users need to update to Indico 3.2.6 as soon as possible. See the docs for instructions on how to update. Users who cannot upgrade should only let trustworthy users manage categories, create events or upload materials ("submission" privileges on a contribution/event). This should already be the case in a properly-configured setup when it comes to category/event management. Note that a conference doing a Call for Abstracts actively invites external speakers (who the organizers may not know and thus cannot fully trust) to submit content, hence the need to update to a a fixed version ASAP in particular when using such workflows.
Why
Attacker-controlled content can reach a browser as executable script without sufficient output encoding or sanitisation.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- Low: a basic authenticated account is required
- User interaction
- Required interaction required
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Changed: exploitation can affect a different security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-79 ↗
CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting'). The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UIRequiredUser interaction: Another user must perform an action for exploitation to succeed.SChangedScope: The attack can affect a component governed by a different security authority.CLowConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.ILowIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- No specific living-off-the-land technique is confirmed in the structured sources. Monitor normal administration tools for activity inconsistent with the affected service's baseline.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Patch available
- Affected
- indico: < 3.2.6
- Action
- Review the linked authoritative reference and apply the recorded fixed release appropriate to the affected product branch.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 21 Jul 2023 · Last source change 10 Oct 2024, 18:58 UTC · CWE-79 · Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2023-0098
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD modified after enrichment
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
CVE published
Fixed release or patch reference recorded
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.