VulnerabilityPublished 24 Jul 2023Updated 7 Nov 2025

CVE-2023-3384: Red Hat Quay 3 · Cross-site Scripting

Affects Red Hat Quay 3Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 41% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 24 Jul 2023
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2023-3384, European organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Apply all available patches or updates from Red Hat for Quay 3 as soon as they are released to ensure the regex validation is consistently applied to all image labels, including those originating from images. 2) Enforce strict input validation and sanitization on all user-supplied data and metadata, including image labels, at all entry points within the registry. 3) Restrict public access to container registries where possible, limiting image uploads and views to authenticated and authorized users only, thereby reducing exposure to malicious uploads. 4) Implement Content Security Policy (CSP) headers in the Quay web interface to limit the execution of unauthorized scripts and reduce the impact of potential XSS attacks. 5) Monitor registry logs and image metadata for unusual or suspicious label content that may indicate exploitation attempts. 6) Educate developers and DevOps teams about secure image labeling practices and the risks of unvalidated metadata. 7) Consider deploying web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules tailored to detect and block XSS payloads targeting the registry interface. 8) Regularly audit container images and metadata for compliance with security policies before deployment. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on the specific vectors and context of this vulnerability.

Description

A flaw was found in the Quay registry. While the image labels created through Quay undergo validation both in the UI and backend by applying a regex (validation.py), the same validation is not performed when the label comes from an image. This flaw allows an attacker to publish a malicious image to a public registry containing a script that can be executed via Cross-site scripting (XSS).

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2023-3384 can be significant, especially for those relying on Red Hat Quay 3 for container image management. Successful exploitation could lead to the execution of arbitrary scripts in the context of legitimate users accessing the registry, potentially exposing session cookies, authentication tokens, or other sensitive information. This can facilitate unauthorized actions such as privilege escalation, data leakage, or manipulation of container images metadata. Given the increasing adoption of containerization and DevOps practices in Europe, organizations using public or internal registries without strict access controls are at risk. The vulnerability could also undermine trust in container supply chains if malicious images are distributed. While the vulnerability does not directly impact system availability, the compromise of confidentiality and integrity can lead to broader security incidents, including lateral movement within networks or compromise of deployment pipelines. Additionally, regulatory frameworks such as GDPR impose strict data protection requirements, and exploitation leading to data breaches could result in legal and financial penalties. Organizations in sectors with high container usage—such as finance, telecommunications, and technology—may face elevated risks due to the criticality of their infrastructure and data.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Nov 2025, 01:48 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats