CVE-2025-63243VulnerabilityPublished 19 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-63243: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.6 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.6Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 11% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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 19 Nov 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 2026-10-25.

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

AI-suggested

European organizations should implement the following specific mitigations: 1) Immediately review and apply any available patches or updates from Pixeon for WebLaudos 25.1 or later versions addressing this vulnerability. 2) If patches are not yet available, implement web application firewall (WAF) rules to detect and block malicious payloads targeting the sle_sSenha parameter, focusing on typical XSS attack patterns. 3) Conduct input validation and output encoding on all user-supplied inputs, especially parameters involved in password change functionalities, to neutralize script injection attempts. 4) Educate users about phishing risks and encourage caution when clicking on unsolicited or suspicious URLs, particularly those related to password management. 5) Monitor application logs for unusual URL requests or repeated attempts to exploit the sle_sSenha parameter. 6) Limit user privileges where possible to reduce the impact of compromised accounts. 7) Employ Content Security Policy (CSP) headers to restrict the execution of unauthorized scripts within the application context. 8) Regularly perform security testing, including automated scanning and manual penetration testing, focusing on XSS vulnerabilities in critical workflows like password changes.

Description

A reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability exists in the password change functionality of Pixeon WebLaudos 25.1 (01). The sle_sSenha parameter to the loginAlterarSenha.asp file. An attacker can craft a malicious URL that, when visited by a victim, causes arbitrary JavaScript code to be executed in the victim's browser within the security context of the vulnerable application. This issue could allow attackers to steal session cookies, disclose sensitive information, perform unauthorized actions on behalf of the user, or conduct phishing attacks.

Impact

For European organizations, particularly those in healthcare or sectors using Pixeon WebLaudos, this vulnerability poses a risk of session hijacking, unauthorized actions, and data leakage through reflected XSS attacks. Attackers could exploit this to impersonate users, potentially accessing sensitive patient data or manipulating records, which could lead to privacy violations and regulatory non-compliance under GDPR. Although the impact is rated medium, the risk is heightened in environments where users have elevated privileges or where phishing campaigns can be combined with this vulnerability to increase success rates. The reflected nature of the XSS requires user interaction, which somewhat limits automated exploitation but does not eliminate risk, especially in targeted spear-phishing scenarios. The lack of availability impact reduces the risk of service disruption but does not diminish the confidentiality and integrity concerns. Overall, the vulnerability could undermine trust in critical healthcare applications and lead to reputational damage and legal consequences for affected organizations.

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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Nov 2025, 15:04 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-79

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats