Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-29184 is a high-severity Cross-site Scripting (CWE-79) vulnerability in Freescout Freescout. Its CVSS base score is 8.0 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Browser Session Hijacking (T1185); ranked in the top 45% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-26214
Vulnerability Data
FreeScout is a self-hosted help desk and shared mailbox. A Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability has been identified within the Signature Input Field of the FreeScout Application prior to version 1.8.128. Stored XSS occurs when user input is not properly…
more
sanitized and is stored on the server, allowing an attacker to inject malicious scripts that will be executed when other users access the affected page. In this case, the Support Agent User can inject malicious scripts into their signature, which will then be executed when viewed by the Administrator. The application protects users against XSS attacks by enforcing a CSP policy, the CSP Policy is: `script-src 'self' 'nonce-abcd' `. The CSP policy only allows the inclusion of JS files that are present on the application server and doesn't allow any inline script or script other than nonce-abcd. The CSP policy was bypassed by uploading a JS file to the server by a POST request to /conversation/upload endpoint. After this, a working XSS payload was crafted by including the uploaded JS file link as the src of the script. This bypassed the CSP policy and XSS attacks became possible. The impact of this vulnerability is severe as it allows an attacker to compromise the FreeScout Application. By exploiting this vulnerability, the attacker can perform various malicious actions such as forcing the Administrator to execute actions without their knowledge or consent. For instance, the attacker can force the Administrator to add a new administrator controlled by the attacker, thereby giving the attacker full control over the application. Alternatively, the attacker can elevate the privileges of a low-privileged user to Administrator, further compromising the security of the application. Attackers can steal sensitive information such as login credentials, session tokens, personal identifiable information (PII), and financial data. The vulnerability can also lead to defacement of the Application. Version 1.8.128 contains a patch for this issue.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.1.2V1.3.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing or incorrect input neutralization through targeted web-application tests.
Input validation directly enforces neutralization of untrusted data before it reaches web output generation.
Output filtering can catch or sanitize unneutralized script content before it is served to users.
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.