CVE-2025-1763VulnerabilityPublished 30 May 2025

CVE-2025-1763: GitLab · Cross-site Scripting

Affects GitLabSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.7 High · fixed in 17.11.1 : patch GitLab soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.7High

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 46% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 17.11.1, 17.10.5, 17.9.7

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
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: 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: 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 30 May 2025
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 2026-10-26.

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

Upgrade gitlab-org/gitlab to 17.11.1, 17.10.5 or 17.9.7.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubgitlab-org/gitlab`pkg:github/gitlab-org/gitlab`Other threats	Affected >=16.6 <17.9.7 >=17.10 <17.10.5 >=17.11 <17.11.1 =16.6 =17.10 =17.11	Fixed in 17.9.7 17.10.5 17.11.1

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

AI-suggested

European organizations should prioritize upgrading GitLab EE installations to versions 17.9.7, 17.10.5, 17.11.1, or later, where this vulnerability is patched. Until upgrades can be applied, organizations should enforce strict access controls to limit user privileges, minimizing the number of users with write or administrative permissions. Implementing multi-factor authentication (MFA) can reduce the risk of account compromise that could lead to exploitation. Review and tighten Content Security Policy configurations to mitigate script injection risks, although CSP bypass is possible, a robust policy may still reduce attack surface. Conduct thorough audits of user-generated content and inputs that interact with GitLab web interfaces to detect and sanitize potentially malicious inputs. Monitoring GitLab logs for unusual activity or attempted exploitation attempts is recommended. Additionally, educating developers and users about phishing and social engineering risks can help prevent attackers from gaining the necessary user interaction to exploit the vulnerability. Network segmentation to isolate GitLab servers and restrict access to trusted users can further reduce exposure. Finally, maintain up-to-date backups of repositories and configurations to enable recovery in case of compromise.

Description

An issue has been discovered in GitLab EE that allows for cross-site-scripting attack and content security policy bypass in a user's browser under specific conditions, affecting all versions from 16.6 before 17.9.7, 17.10 before 17.10.5, and 17.11 before 17.11.1.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-1763 is significant due to the widespread adoption of GitLab EE in software development and DevOps environments. Successful exploitation could lead to compromise of sensitive source code repositories, exposure of confidential project data, and potential disruption of development workflows. The ability to bypass CSP increases the likelihood of successful exploitation even in environments with security policies in place. This could result in theft of authentication tokens, unauthorized code changes, or lateral movement within the network if attackers leverage stolen credentials. Given the collaborative nature of software development, the vulnerability could also be exploited to target multiple users within an organization, amplifying the risk. The high confidentiality and integrity impact could damage intellectual property, cause regulatory compliance issues (e.g., GDPR breaches if personal data is exposed), and harm organizational reputation. Additionally, since the vulnerability requires a logged-in user context, insider threats or compromised accounts could be leveraged to exploit this flaw. The absence of known exploits in the wild currently provides a window for mitigation, but the high CVSS score underscores the urgency for remediation.

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

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Jul 2025, 21:26 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-79

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats