VulnerabilityPublished 2 Feb 2024Updated 3 Jun 2025

CVE-2024-23553: HCL Software BigFix Platform · Cross-site Scripting

Affects HCL Software BigFix PlatformSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.0 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.0Low

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 16% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: None
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within 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 2 Feb 2024
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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
HCL Software BigFix Platform	Affected >=9.5 <=9.5.23 >=10 <=10.0.10	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability effectively, European organizations should: 1) Immediately review and restrict access to the Web Reports component of BigFix to trusted users only, minimizing exposure. 2) Implement strict Content Security Policy (CSP) headers and ensure HTTP response headers such as X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and X-XSS-Protection are properly configured to reduce XSS risks. 3) Educate users on phishing and social engineering risks, emphasizing caution when clicking links or opening attachments, especially within the BigFix user base. 4) Monitor network traffic and logs for unusual activity related to the Web Reports interface, including anomalous URL parameters or script injections. 5) Engage with HCL Software support to obtain any forthcoming patches or workarounds and apply them promptly once available. 6) Consider implementing web application firewalls (WAF) with rules targeting XSS attack patterns on the BigFix Web Reports endpoint. 7) Conduct internal penetration testing and code reviews focusing on input validation and output encoding in the Web Reports component to identify and remediate similar issues proactively.

Description

A cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the Web Reports component of HCL BigFix Platform exists due to missing a specific http header attribute.

Impact

For European organizations using HCL BigFix Platform versions 9.5 to 10.0.10, this vulnerability poses a limited but non-negligible risk. Since BigFix is widely used for endpoint management and patching in enterprise environments, exploitation could allow attackers to execute scripts in the context of legitimate users, potentially leading to session hijacking, unauthorized actions within the Web Reports interface, or manipulation of displayed information. Although the confidentiality impact is rated none, integrity is low, meaning attackers could alter the appearance or behavior of reports, potentially misleading administrators or causing operational confusion. The requirement for user interaction and low privileges reduces the likelihood of widespread exploitation, but targeted phishing or social engineering attacks could be effective. European organizations with strict compliance requirements or those relying heavily on BigFix for security management might face operational risks or reputational damage if such attacks occur. The absence of known exploits and patches suggests the threat is currently low but should be monitored closely to prevent escalation.

CWE-79Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #1OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
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.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Implementation · Architecture and Design
Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages.
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Cross Site Scripting Prevention (opens in a new tab)
DOM based XSS Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XSS Using MIME Type Mismatch (opens in a new tab)
DOM-Based XSS (opens in a new tab)
Reflected XSS (opens in a new tab)
Stored XSS (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

support.hcltechsw.com/csm?id=kb_article&sysparm_article=KB0110209 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 4 Jul 2025, 13:09 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-79

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats