VulnerabilityPublished 3 Feb 2026Updated 17 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-65924: frappe_docker · Basic XSS

Affects frappe_dockerSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.1 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.1Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 17% 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:N/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: None
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within 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 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
GitHubfrappe/frappe_docker`pkg:github/frappe/frappe_docker`Other threats	Affected <=15.88.1	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) Immediately audit and restrict access to the 'Add Quality Goal' function to trusted personnel only, minimizing the risk of malicious input. 2) Implement input validation and sanitization at the application level to strip or encode HTML tags, especially <a> tags, in fields intended for plain text before PDF generation. 3) Where possible, update ERPNext to versions beyond 15.88.1 once patches addressing this vulnerability are released. 4) Educate users to treat ERP-generated PDFs with caution and verify links before clicking, particularly those received from internal sources. 5) Employ PDF scanning tools that can detect and flag suspicious hyperlinks in generated documents. 6) Monitor logs for unusual activity related to the 'Add Quality Goal' function and PDF generation. 7) Consider deploying endpoint protection solutions capable of detecting phishing and malware payloads delivered via PDFs. 8) Engage with ERPNext vendors or community to track patch releases and vulnerability disclosures. These measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on access control, input sanitization, user education, and document inspection tailored to this vulnerability.

Description

ERPNext thru 15.88.1 does not sanitize or remove certain HTML tags specifically `<a>` hyperlinks in fields that are intended for plain text. Although JavaScript is blocked (preventing XSS), the HTML is still preserved in the generated PDF document. As a result, an attacker can inject malicious clickable links into an ERP-generated PDF. Since PDF files generated by the ERP system are generally considered trustworthy, users are highly likely to click these links, potentially enabling phishing attacks or malware delivery. This issue occurs in the Add Quality Goal' function.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a risk primarily to the integrity of business documents and the security of end users who rely on ERPNext-generated PDFs for operational decisions. Malicious links embedded in trusted PDFs can facilitate phishing campaigns or malware infections, potentially leading to credential theft, lateral movement within networks, or disruption of business processes. Industries with heavy ERPNext usage, such as manufacturing, supply chain management, and quality assurance, may face increased exposure. The requirement for authenticated access limits the attack surface to internal or trusted users, but insider threats or compromised accounts could exploit this vector. The social engineering aspect increases the likelihood of successful exploitation, especially in environments with less security awareness. While confidentiality and availability are not directly impacted, the reputational damage and operational disruptions from successful phishing or malware attacks could be significant. European data protection regulations (e.g., GDPR) may also impose compliance risks if such attacks lead to data breaches.

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

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

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 18 Feb 2026, 13:57 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-80

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats