VulnerabilityPublished 3 Feb 2026Updated 4 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-65923: Cross-site Scripting

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 8% 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:C/C:L/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
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: 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: 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 3 Feb 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 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) Restrict CSV import permissions strictly to trusted and trained personnel to minimize the risk of malicious CSV uploads. 2) Implement input validation and sanitization at the application layer, ensuring that CSV fields do not contain executable scripts or HTML content before import. 3) Employ Content Security Policy (CSP) headers in the ERPNext web interface to limit the execution of unauthorized scripts. 4) Monitor and audit CSV import activities and user actions to detect anomalous behavior or unauthorized imports. 5) Educate users about the risks of interacting with untrusted data within ERPNext. 6) Regularly update ERPNext to the latest versions once patches addressing this vulnerability are released. 7) Consider deploying web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules targeting XSS payloads in HTTP requests. 8) Isolate ERPNext instances and enforce strict network segmentation to limit lateral movement if exploitation occurs. These measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on operational controls, user training, and layered defenses tailored to the CSV import vector.

Description

CVE-2025-65923 is a stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in ERPNext's CSV import feature when using the 'Update Existing Records' option. An attacker can inject malicious JavaScript into CSV fields, which is then stored and executed in the web interface when a user views the affected record. This can lead to session hijacking or unauthorized actions under the victim's account context. The vulnerability requires low privileges but does require user interaction to trigger. It has a CVSS score of 5.4 (medium severity). No known exploits are reported in the wild yet. Organizations using ERPNext should be cautious when importing CSV data and apply appropriate input validation and sanitization controls. This vulnerability primarily impacts confidentiality and integrity but not availability.

Impact

For European organizations using ERPNext, this vulnerability poses a risk to the confidentiality and integrity of user sessions and data. Attackers exploiting this flaw could hijack user sessions, leading to unauthorized access to sensitive business information, manipulation of records, or execution of actions under legitimate user accounts. This could result in data breaches, financial fraud, or disruption of business processes. Since ERPNext is an open-source ERP system popular among small to medium enterprises and some public sector entities in Europe, the impact could be significant where the software is used to manage critical business functions. The vulnerability does not directly affect availability but could indirectly cause operational disruptions if exploited. Additionally, GDPR compliance implications arise if personal data is compromised due to this vulnerability, potentially leading to regulatory penalties. The medium severity score indicates that while the vulnerability is not trivial, it requires some level of privilege and user interaction, somewhat limiting the attack surface but still warranting prompt attention.

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

github.com/frappe/frappe_docker.git (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 11 Feb 2026, 12:04 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-79

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats