Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 22.94% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2023
CVE-2023-48292High confidence
XWiki Admin Tools Application Run Shell Command allows CSRF RCE attacks
xwiki-contrib · application-admintools
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-8JPR-FF92-HPF9 ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
9.7CriticalCVSS 3.1
Within 7 days
Patch availableCritical technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityCritical→Operational priority:Critical, 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 xwiki-contrib application-admintools 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.
Critical technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Patch available01
What, why and how
The XWiki Admin Tools Application provides tools to help the administration of XWiki. Starting in version 4.4 and prior to version 4.5.1, a cross site request forgery vulnerability in the admin tool for executing shell commands on the server allows an attacker to execute arbitrary shell commands by tricking an admin into loading the URL with the shell command. A very simple possibility for an attack are comments. When the attacker can leave a comment on any page in the wiki it is sufficient to include an image with an URL like `/xwiki/bin/view/Admin/RunShellCommand?command=touch%20/tmp/attacked` in the comment. When an admin views the comment, the file `/tmp/attacked` will be created on the server. The output of the command is also vulnerable to XWiki syntax injection which offers a simple way to execute Groovy in the context of the XWiki installation and thus an even easier way to compromise the integrity and confidentiality of the whole XWiki installation. This has been patched by adding a form token check in version 4.5.1 of the admin tools. Some workarounds are available. The patch can be applied manually to the affected wiki pages. Alternatively, the document `Admin.RunShellCommand` can also be deleted if the possibility to run shell commands isn't needed.
What
The XWiki Admin Tools Application provides tools to help the administration of XWiki. Starting in version 4.4 and prior to version 4.5.1, a cross site request forgery vulnerability in the admin tool for executing shell commands on the server allows an attacker to execute arbitrary shell commands by tricking an admin into loading the URL with the shell command. A very simple possibility for an attack are comments. When the attacker can leave a comment on any page in the wiki it is sufficient to include an image with an URL like `/xwiki/bin/view/Admin/RunShellCommand?command=touch%20/tmp/attacked` in the comment. When an admin views the comment, the file `/tmp/attacked` will be created on the server. The output of the command is also vulnerable to XWiki syntax injection which offers a simple way to execute Groovy in the context of the XWiki installation and thus an even easier way to compromise the integrity and confidentiality of the whole XWiki installation. This has been patched by adding a form token check in version 4.5.1 of the admin tools. Some workarounds are available. The patch can be applied manually to the affected wiki pages. Alternatively, the document `Admin.RunShellCommand` can also be deleted if the possibility to run shell commands isn't needed.
Why
The application accepts a state-changing browser request without a reliable anti-forgery check.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
The XWiki Admin Tools Application provides tools to help the administration of XWiki. Starting in version 4.4 and prior to version 4.5.1, a cross site request forgery vulnerability in the admin tool for executing shell commands on the server allows an attacker to execute arbitrary shell commands by tricking an admin into loading the URL with the shell command. A very simple possibility for an attack are comments. When the attacker can leave a comment on any page in the wiki it is sufficient to include an image with an URL like `/xwiki/bin/view/Admin/RunShellCommand?command=touch%20/tmp/attacked` in the comment. When an admin views the comment, the file `/tmp/attacked` will be created on the server. The output of the command is also vulnerable to XWiki syntax injection which offers a simple way to execute Groovy in the context of the XWiki installation and thus an even easier way to compromise the integrity and confidentiality of the whole XWiki installation. This has been patched by adding a form token check in version 4.5.1 of the admin tools. Some workarounds are available. The patch can be applied manually to the affected wiki pages. Alternatively, the document `Admin.RunShellCommand` can also be deleted if the possibility to run shell commands isn't needed.
Why
The application accepts a state-changing browser request without a reliable anti-forgery check.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. 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 → Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- 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-352 ↗
CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF). The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
- 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:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HCommon 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.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing 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.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.AHighAvailability impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- Stolen credentials, tokens and legitimate administration functions may provide continued access without deploying a large custom toolset.
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
- 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 20 Nov 2023 · Last source change 2 Aug 2024, 21:23 UTC · CWE-352 · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
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-2023-2925
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.