VulnerabilityPublished 14 Jan 2025Updated 15 Jan 2025

CVE-2024-50861: gestioip-docker-compose · Cross-site Scripting

Affects gestioip-docker-composeSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · public exploit available (Exploit-DB) · CVSS 6.1 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.1Medium

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

EPSS: 0.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 57% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
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

t = 0 is the CVE’s publication on cve.org

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 14 Jan 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: evidence found.
1 Exploit-DB entry, 90 days after disclosure
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

CVE ID reserved
by MITRE Corporation
28 Oct 2024, 78 days before disclosure
CVE published
on cve.org
14 Jan 2025, t = 0
First Exploit-DB entry (opens in a new tab)
GestioIP 3.5.7 - Stored Cross-Site Scripting (Stored XSS)
14 Apr 2025, 90 days after disclosure

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 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
GitHubmuebel/gestioip-docker-compose`pkg:github/muebel/gestioip-docker-compose`Other threats	Affected =3.5.7	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-50861, organizations should first check for official patches or updates from GestioIP and apply them promptly once available. In the absence of patches, implement strict input validation and output encoding on the "TSIG Key" field to neutralize malicious scripts. Employ Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to restrict the execution of unauthorized scripts in the application context. Limit user permissions to reduce the impact of potential XSS exploitation, ensuring that only trusted users can modify sensitive fields. Regularly audit and sanitize existing database entries for injected scripts. Additionally, educate users to avoid clicking suspicious links or viewing untrusted content within the GestioIP interface. Deploy web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules targeting XSS payloads to provide an additional layer of defense. Monitor application logs for unusual activities indicative of exploitation attempts. Finally, consider isolating the GestioIP management interface within a secure network segment to reduce exposure.

Description

The ip_mod_dns_key_form.cgi request in GestioIP v3.5.7 is vulnerable to Stored XSS. An attacker can inject malicious code into the "TSIG Key" field, which is saved in the database and triggers XSS when viewed, enabling data exfiltration and CSRF attacks.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-50861 is the compromise of user confidentiality and integrity within GestioIP environments. Successful exploitation allows attackers to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the context of other users’ browsers, potentially leading to theft of sensitive information such as authentication tokens, personal data, or administrative credentials. Additionally, attackers can perform CSRF attacks, causing users to unknowingly execute unauthorized commands or configuration changes within the GestioIP application. This can disrupt network management operations or expose network infrastructure details. Since GestioIP is used for IP address management and DNS infrastructure, exploitation could indirectly affect network stability and security posture. The vulnerability does not directly impact availability but can facilitate further attacks that degrade service or compromise network integrity. Organizations relying on GestioIP 3.5.7 without mitigation are at risk of targeted attacks, especially in environments where multiple users access the management interface.

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

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

Timeline

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 28 Feb 2026, 02:35 UTC

Public exploits and detection1 Exploit-DB entry

WeaknessesCWE-79

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats