Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:NSummary
CVE-2023-38491 is a medium-severity Cross-site Scripting (CWE-79) vulnerability in Getkirby Kirby. Its CVSS base score is 5.7 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Browser Session Hijacking (T1185); ranked at the 47th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-2004
Vulnerability Data
Kirby is a content management system. A vulnerability in versions prior to 3.5.8.3, 3.6.6.3, 3.7.5.2, 3.8.4.1, and 3.9.6 affects all Kirby sites that might have potential attackers in the group of authenticated Panel users or that allow external visitors to…
more
upload an arbitrary file to the content folder. Kirby sites are not affected if they don't allow file uploads for untrusted users or visitors or if the file extensions of uploaded files are limited to a fixed safe list. The attack requires user interaction by another user or visitor and cannot be automated. An editor with write access to the Kirby Panel could upload a file with an unknown file extension like `.xyz` that contains HTML code including harmful content like `<script>` tags. The direct link to that file could be sent to other users or visitors of the site. If the victim opened that link in a browser where they are logged in to Kirby and the file had not been opened by anyone since the upload, Kirby would not be able to send the correct MIME content type, instead falling back to `text/html`. The browser would then run the script, which could for example trigger requests to Kirby's API with the permissions of the victim. The issue was caused by the underlying `Kirby\Http\Response::file()` method, which didn't have an explicit fallback if the MIME type could not be determined from the file extension. If you use this method in site or plugin code, these uses may be affected by the same vulnerability. The problem has been patched in Kirby 3.5.8.3, 3.6.6.3, 3.7.5.2, 3.8.4.1, and 3.9.6. In all of the mentioned releases, the maintainers have fixed the affected method to use a fallback MIME type of `text/plain` and set the `X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff` header if the MIME type of the file is unknown.
- 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.
Secure-coding testing and automated code-analysis tools are applied to detect improper neutralization of script-related content during web-page generation.
Knowledge exchange on emerging attack techniques and patches reduces the likelihood that cross-site scripting flaws remain unaddressed in deployed applications.
Operational indicators of compromise for web-application attacks can be incorporated into WAF or input-filtering rules, lowering the likelihood that unsanitized data reaches the browser.
Requiring language-specific secure-coding standards and automated scanning during the SDLC catches missing output encoding or improper neutralization of untrusted data before the software reaches production.
Secure-coding standards, SAST scans and removal of insecure code samples together eliminate the failure to neutralize script content that produces cross-site scripting flaws.
Webpage malware scanning and block-listing of known malicious sites reduce the likelihood that reflected or stored script payloads reach a user’s browser.