VulnerabilityPublished 19 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-11946: LogicalDOC Community Edition · Cross-site Scripting

Affects LogicalDOC Community EditionSource CVE Database V5

Public exploit available · CVSS 5.1 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.1Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 30% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Passive
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: Passive: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires limited interaction by the targeted user with the vulnerable system and the attacker’s payload. These interactions would be considered involuntary and do not require that the user actively subvert protections built into the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 19 Oct 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: evidence found.
CVSS exploit maturity: proof of concept public
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), CVSS vector, 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
LogicalDOC Community Edition	Affected =9.2.0 =9.2.1	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Given the absence of official patches, European organizations should implement immediate compensating controls. First, apply strict input validation and sanitization on all user-supplied data fields related to contact information, either via custom code or web application firewalls (WAFs) configured to detect and block XSS payloads targeting LogicalDOC. Restrict access to the Add Contact Page component to trusted users or internal networks only, using network segmentation or VPNs. Educate users about the risks of clicking suspicious links or entering data from untrusted sources to reduce the chance of triggering XSS payloads. Monitor application logs and network traffic for unusual patterns indicative of XSS exploitation attempts. Consider deploying Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to limit the execution of unauthorized scripts in browsers. If feasible, isolate LogicalDOC instances in hardened environments and regularly back up data to mitigate potential damage. Engage with LogicalDOC vendors or community forums to track any forthcoming patches or updates. Finally, conduct security assessments and penetration tests focusing on XSS vulnerabilities to identify and remediate similar issues proactively.

Description

A security flaw has been discovered in LogicalDOC Community Edition up to 9.2.1. This issue affects some unknown processing of the file /frontend.jsp of the component Add Contact Page. Performing manipulation of the argument First Name/Last Name/Company/Address/Phone/Mobile results in cross site scripting. Remote exploitation of the attack is possible. The exploit has been released to the public and may be exploited. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a moderate risk primarily to confidentiality and integrity. LogicalDOC is used for document management, often containing sensitive corporate or personal data. Exploitation could allow attackers to steal session cookies, impersonate users, or conduct phishing attacks within the context of the application, potentially leading to unauthorized data access or manipulation. Public-facing LogicalDOC instances are at higher risk, especially if accessed by multiple users or integrated with other enterprise systems. The lack of vendor response and patches increases exposure time, raising the likelihood of exploitation as attackers develop and deploy exploits. Organizations in Europe with compliance obligations under GDPR must consider the risk of data breaches resulting from such attacks. While availability impact is minimal, the reputational and regulatory consequences of a successful attack could be significant. The requirement for user interaction limits automated mass exploitation but does not eliminate risk, especially in environments with less security awareness or where social engineering is feasible.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 27 Oct 2025, 01:22 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats