Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-30862 is a critical-severity Cross-site Scripting (CWE-79) vulnerability in Appsmith Appsmith. Its CVSS base score is 9.0 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Browser Session Hijacking (T1185); ranked at the 23th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); 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.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2026-30862 is a critical stored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability, rated at CVSS 3.1 score of 9.0 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H) and mapped to CWE-79, affecting Appsmith versions prior to 1.96. Appsmith is a platform for building admin panels, internal tools, and dashboards. The issue resides in the Table Widget (TableWidgetV2), where a lack of HTML sanitization in the React component rendering pipeline allows malicious attributes to be interpolated into the DOM.
An attacker with a regular user account, such as user@gmail.com, can exploit this vulnerability by leveraging the "Invite Users" feature. This enables the attacker to force a System Administrator to execute a high-privileged API call to /api/v1/admin/env through a stored XSS payload, resulting in full administrative account takeover.
The official Appsmith security advisory (GHSA-5hw4-whxv-6794) confirms that the vulnerability is fixed in Appsmith version 1.96, recommending that users upgrade to this or later versions to mitigate the risk.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-10412
Vulnerability Data
Appsmith is a platform to build admin panels, internal tools, and dashboards. Prior to 1.96, a Critical Stored XSS vulnerability exists in the Table Widget (TableWidgetV2). The root cause is a lack of HTML sanitization in the React component rendering…
more
pipeline, allowing malicious attributes to be interpolated into the DOM. By leveraging the "Invite Users" feature, an attacker with a regular user account (user@gmail.com) can force a System Administrator to execute a high-privileged API call (/api/v1/admin/env), resulting in a Full Administrative Account Takeover. This vulnerability is fixed in 1.96.
- 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.