VulnerabilityPublished 29 Jan 2026Updated 2 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-45160: cacti · Basic XSS

Affects cactiSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 12% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
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: 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: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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: 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

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 29 Jan 2026
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
GitHubcacti/cacti`pkg:github/cacti/cacti`Other threats	Affected <=1.2.29	Fixed in–

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 implement the following specific mitigations: 1) Upgrade Cacti installations to versions beyond 1.2.29, preferably the latest stable release, as the vulnerability appears unreproducible after 1.2.27, indicating fixes. 2) If upgrading is not immediately feasible, apply input validation and sanitization on the filename parameter in the file upload error handling code to neutralize HTML tags and special characters. 3) Restrict allowed file upload types strictly to expected formats to reduce the chance of invalid filenames triggering the vulnerability. 4) Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious HTML injection attempts targeting the file upload endpoint. 5) Monitor logs for unusual file upload errors or unexpected HTML content in error messages. 6) Limit user privileges to the minimum necessary to reduce the risk of exploitation by low-privilege attackers. 7) Conduct security awareness training for administrators to recognize potential interface manipulation. 8) Regularly audit and review Cacti configurations and customizations to ensure no additional injection vectors exist. These targeted steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on the specific injection vector and operational context of Cacti deployments.

Description

A HTML injection vulnerability exists in the file upload functionality of Cacti <= 1.2.29. When a file with an invalid format is uploaded, the application reflects the submitted filename back into an error popup without proper sanitization. As a result, attackers can inject arbitrary HTML elements (e.g., <h1>, <b>, <svg>) into the rendered page. NOTE: Multiple third-parties including the maintainer have stated that they cannot reproduce this issue after 1.2.27.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2025-45160 lies in the potential manipulation of the Cacti monitoring interface through injected HTML elements. This could lead to misinformation or confusion among network administrators, possibly delaying response to genuine network issues or masking malicious activity. The confidentiality impact is limited but could include exposure of sensitive filenames or metadata if combined with other vulnerabilities. Integrity is moderately affected as the attacker can alter the displayed content, but no direct data modification or system compromise is implied. Availability remains unaffected. Organizations relying heavily on Cacti for critical infrastructure monitoring, such as utilities, telecommunications, and government agencies, may face increased risk if attackers exploit this vulnerability to disrupt monitoring accuracy. The requirement for low privileges and network access means internal threat actors or attackers who have gained limited access could exploit this flaw. Given the absence of known exploits in the wild, the immediate risk is moderate, but the potential for targeted attacks exists, especially in sectors where network monitoring is vital for operational security.

CWE-80Improper Neutralization of Script-Related HTML Tags in a Web Page (Basic XSS) (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special characters such as "<", ">", and "&" that could be interpreted as web-scripting elements when they are sent to a downstream component that processes web pages.
Implementation
Carefully check each input parameter against a rigorous positive specification (allowlist) defining the specific characters and format allowed. All input should be neutralized, not just parameters that the user is supposed to specify, but all data in the request, including hidden fields, cookies, headers, the URL…
Implementation · Output Encoding
Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8.
Implementation
With Struts, write all data from form beans with the bean's filter attribute set to true.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
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)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XSS Targeting Non-Script Elements (opens in a new tab)
PHP Remote File Inclusion (opens in a new tab)
XSS Through HTTP Query Strings (opens in a new tab)
XSS Through HTTP Headers (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 6 Feb 2026, 08:37 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-80

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats