CVE-2023-2119
XSS in I13Websolution Responsive Filterable Portfolio ≤ 1.0.19
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:NCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2023-2119 is a medium-severity Cross-site Scripting (CWE-79) vulnerability in I13Websolution Responsive Filterable Portfolio. Its CVSS base score is 6.1 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Protocol or Service Impersonation (T1001.003); ranked at the 45th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
The Responsive Filterable Portfolio plugin for WordPress is affected by a reflected cross-site scripting vulnerability in versions up to and including 1.0.19. The flaw exists in the search_term parameter and results from insufficient input sanitization and output escaping, as classified under CWE-79 with a CVSS 3.1 score of 6.1.
Unauthenticated attackers can exploit the issue by supplying a crafted search_term value in a URL. If a victim is tricked into clicking the link, arbitrary scripts execute in the browser under the site's origin, enabling limited impacts to confidentiality and integrity without requiring authentication.
Advisories and plugin references point to a fix released in version 1.0.20, with changeset records showing updates to the affected code paths in the responsive-filterable-portfolio repository.
The associated EPSS score reached a peak of 0.0633 but has since receded to 0.0368 with no sustained elevation after disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-33640
Vulnerability Data
The Responsive Filterable Portfolio plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Reflected Cross-Site Scripting via the search_term parameter in versions up to, and including, 1.0.19 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to…
more
inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that execute if they can successfully trick a user into performing an action such as clicking on a link.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.1.2V1.3.2
Likely Mitigating Controls AI
Per-CVE control mapping for this CVE has not run yet; the list below is derived from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry.
Penetration testing submits XSS payloads to web applications, detecting cross-site scripting flaws for subsequent remediation.
Validates web inputs to reject script-related content that could produce XSS.
Output validation against expected content can reject or sanitize script content in generated web pages, reducing XSS exploitability.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly target introduction of XSS via coding standards/testing (mostly), yet the single broad outcome leaves many specific neutralization vectors unaddressed (partial).
Patching and EOL replacement can remediate known XSS instances in libraries or frameworks (partial) but do nothing to enforce input neutralization in application code (none).
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
A.5.6 only promotes membership in groups to improve knowledge, receive alerts, and share information; it performs no action that stops XSS exploitation (or even the underlying neutralization defect) and is a pure dependency for other controls per the owner's labeling rule.