VulnerabilityPublished 4 Oct 2023Updated 20 Nov 2025

CVE-2023-3971: Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.3 for RHEL 8 · Basic XSS

Affects Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform 2.3 for RHEL 8Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.3 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.3High

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

EPSS: 0.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 56% 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:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 4 Oct 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

Apply official patches from Red Hat as soon as they become available to address the HTML injection flaw directly.
Restrict access to the Ansible Automation Platform Controller UI to trusted administrators only, using network segmentation and VPNs to limit exposure.
Implement strict input validation and output encoding on all user-supplied data in the UI settings to prevent injection of malicious HTML or scripts.
Deploy Content Security Policies (CSP) in the web interface to restrict execution of unauthorized scripts and reduce the impact of injection attacks.
Conduct regular security audits and penetration testing focused on the Controller UI to detect similar injection vulnerabilities.
Educate users and administrators about phishing risks and encourage vigilance when interacting with login pages or UI prompts.
Monitor logs and network traffic for suspicious activities indicative of credential harvesting attempts or unauthorized UI modifications.
Consider multi-factor authentication (MFA) for accessing the Controller to reduce the risk of credential compromise leading to full system takeover.

Description

An HTML injection flaw was found in Controller in the user interface settings. This flaw allows an attacker to capture credentials by creating a custom login page by injecting HTML, resulting in a complete compromise.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk due to the widespread use of Red Hat Ansible Automation Platform in enterprise IT environments for automating configuration management, application deployment, and orchestration. Successful exploitation can lead to credential theft, allowing attackers to gain unauthorized access to the automation platform and potentially pivot to other critical systems. This compromises the confidentiality and integrity of automated processes and sensitive data, potentially disrupting business operations indirectly through manipulation of automation workflows. The lack of impact on availability means systems remain operational but under attacker control, increasing the risk of stealthy, persistent threats. Organizations in sectors such as finance, manufacturing, telecommunications, and government, which rely heavily on automation for operational efficiency and security, are particularly vulnerable. The requirement for some privilege and user interaction limits the attack surface but does not eliminate risk, especially in environments with many users or less stringent access controls. The absence of known exploits in the wild currently provides a window for remediation before widespread attacks occur.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 20 Nov 2025, 20:47 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats