7.2 CVE-2025-50891
The server-side backend for Adform Site Tracking before 2025-08-28 allows attackers to inject HTML or execute arbitrary code via cookie hijacking. NOTE: a customer does not need to take any action to update locally installed software (such as Adform Site Tracking 1.1).
https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-50891
Categories
CWE-79 : Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users. A common abbreviation for Cross-Site Scripting. Used as a synonym of stored (Type 2) XSS. Used when a server application reads data directly from the HTTP request and reflects it back in the HTTP response. Used when a server-side application stores dangerous data in a database, message forum, visitor log, or other trusted data store. At a later time, the dangerous data is subsequently read back into the application and included in dynamic content. Used when a client-side application performs the injection of XSS into the page by manipulating the Domain Object Model (DOM). In the early years after initial discovery of XSS, "CSS" was a commonly-used acronym. However, this would cause confusion with "Cascading Style Sheets," so usage of this acronym has declined significantly. Use automated static analysis tools that target this type of weakness. Many modern techniques use data flow analysis to minimize the number of false positives. This is not a perfect solution, since 100% accuracy and coverage are not feasible, especially when multiple components are involved. Use the XSS Cheat Sheet [REF-714] or automated test-generation tools to help launch a wide variety of attacks against your web application. The Cheat Sheet contains many subtle XSS variations that are specifically targeted against weak XSS defenses. Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls. For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server. If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated. With Struts, write all data from form beans with the bean's filter attribute set to true. To help mitigate XSS attacks against the user's session cookie, set the session cookie to be HttpOnly. In browsers that support the HttpOnly feature (such as more recent versions of Internet Explorer and Firefox), this attribute can prevent the user's session cookie from being accessible to malicious client-side scripts that use document.cookie. This is not a complete solution, since HttpOnly is not supported by all browsers. More importantly, XMLHTTPRequest and other powerful browser technologies provide read access to HTTP headers, including the Set-Cookie header in which the HttpOnly flag is set. When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs. Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481]. When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues. XSS in AI assistant Plugin that enables AI features allows input with html entities, leading to XSS Python Library Manager did not sufficiently neutralize a user-supplied search term, allowing reflected XSS. Python-based e-commerce platform did not escape returned content on error pages, allowing for reflected Cross-Site Scripting attacks. Universal XSS in mobile operating system, as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV. Chain: improper input validation (CWE-20) in firewall product leads to XSS (CWE-79), as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV. Admin GUI allows XSS through cookie. Web stats program allows XSS through crafted HTTP header. Web log analysis product allows XSS through crafted HTTP Referer header. Chain: protection mechanism failure allows XSS Chain: incomplete denylist (CWE-184) only checks "javascript:" tag, allowing XSS (CWE-79) using other tags Chain: incomplete denylist (CWE-184) only removes SCRIPT tags, enabling XSS (CWE-79) Reflected XSS using the PATH_INFO in a URL Reflected XSS not properly handled when generating an error message Reflected XSS sent through email message. Stored XSS in a security product. Stored XSS using a wiki page. Stored XSS in a guestbook application. Stored XSS in a guestbook application using a javascript: URI in a bbcode img tag. Chain: library file is not protected against a direct request (CWE-425), leading to reflected XSS (CWE-79).
CWE-77 : Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection')
The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component. an attack-oriented phrase for this weakness. Note: often used when "OS command injection" (CWE-78) was intended. Automated static analysis, commonly referred to as Static Application Security Testing (SAST), can find some instances of this weakness by analyzing source code (or binary/compiled code) without having to execute it. Typically, this is done by building a model of data flow and control flow, then searching for potentially-vulnerable patterns that connect "sources" (origins of input) with "sinks" (destinations where the data interacts with external components, a lower layer such as the OS, etc.) If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality. If possible, ensure that all external commands called from the program are statically created. Run time: Run time policy enforcement may be used in an allowlist fashion to prevent use of any non-sanctioned commands. Assign permissions that prevent the user from accessing/opening privileged files. injection of sed script syntax ("sed injection") API service using a large generative AI model allows direct prompt injection to leak hard-coded system prompts or execute other prompts. anti-spam product allows injection of SNMP commands into confiuration file image program allows injection of commands in "Magick Vector Graphics (MVG)" language. Python-based dependency management tool avoids OS command injection when generating Git commands but allows injection of optional arguments with input beginning with a dash (CWE-88), potentially allowing for code execution. Canonical example of OS command injection. CGI program does not neutralize "|" metacharacter when invoking a phonebook program. Chain: improper input validation (CWE-20) in username parameter, leading to OS command injection (CWE-78), as exploited in the wild per CISA KEV. injection of sed script syntax ("sed injection") injection of sed script syntax ("sed injection")
References
CPE
REMEDIATION
EXPLOITS
Exploit-db.com
| id |
description |
date |
|
| No known exploits |
POC Github
Other Nist (github, ...)
CAPEC
Common Attack Pattern Enumerations and Classifications
| id |
description |
severity |
| 209 |
XSS Using MIME Type Mismatch
An adversary creates a file with scripting content but where the specified MIME type of the file is such that scripting is not expected. The adversary tricks the victim into accessing a URL that responds with the script file. Some browsers will detect that the specified MIME type of the file does not match the actual type of its content and will automatically switch to using an interpreter for the real content type. If the browser does not invoke script filters before doing this, the adversary's script may run on the target unsanitized, possibly revealing the victim's cookies or executing arbitrary script in their browser. [Survey the application for stored user-controllable inputs] Using a browser or an automated tool, an adversary follows all public links and actions on a web site. They record all areas that allow a user to upload content through an HTTP POST request. This is typically found in blogs or forums. [Probe identified potential entry points for MIME type mismatch] The adversary uses the entry points gathered in the "Explore" phase as a target list and uploads files with scripting content, but whose MIME type is specified as a file type that cannot execute scripting content. If the application only checks the MIME type of the file, it may let the file through, causing the script to be executed by any user who accesses the file. [Store malicious XSS content] Once the adversary has determined which file upload locations are vulnerable to MIME type mismatch, they will upload a malicious script disguised as a non scripting file. The adversary can have many goals, from stealing session IDs, cookies, credentials, and page content from a victim. [Get victim to view stored content] In order for the attack to be successful, the victim needs to view the stored malicious content on the webpage. |
Medium |
| 588 |
DOM-Based XSS
This type of attack is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is inserted into the client-side HTML being parsed by a web browser. Content served by a vulnerable web application includes script code used to manipulate the Document Object Model (DOM). This script code either does not properly validate input, or does not perform proper output encoding, thus creating an opportunity for an adversary to inject a malicious script launch a XSS attack. A key distinction between other XSS attacks and DOM-based attacks is that in other XSS attacks, the malicious script runs when the vulnerable web page is initially loaded, while a DOM-based attack executes sometime after the page loads. Another distinction of DOM-based attacks is that in some cases, the malicious script is never sent to the vulnerable web server at all. An attack like this is guaranteed to bypass any server-side filtering attempts to protect users. [Survey the application for user-controllable inputs] Using a browser or an automated tool, an adversary follows all public links and actions on a web site. They record all the links, the forms, the resources accessed and all other potential entry-points for the web application. [Probe identified potential entry points for DOM-based XSS vulnerability] The adversary uses the entry points gathered in the "Explore" phase as a target list and injects various common script payloads and special characters to determine if an entry point actually represents a vulnerability and to characterize the extent to which the vulnerability can be exploited. Specific to DOM-based XSS, the adversary is looking for areas where input is being used to directly change the DOM. [Craft malicious XSS URL] Once the adversary has determined which parameters are vulnerable to XSS, they will craft a malicious URL containing the XSS exploit. The adversary can have many goals, from stealing session IDs, cookies, credentials, and page content from the victim. In DOM-based XSS, the malicious script might not even be sent to the server, since the victim's browser will manipulate the DOM itself. This can help avoid serve-side detection mechanisms. [Get victim to click URL] In order for the attack to be successful, the victim needs to access the malicious URL. |
Very High |
| 591 |
Reflected XSS
This type of attack is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is "reflected" off a vulnerable web application and then executed by a victim's browser. The process starts with an adversary delivering a malicious script to a victim and convincing the victim to send the script to the vulnerable web application. [Survey the application for user-controllable inputs] Using a browser or an automated tool, an adversary follows all public links and actions on a web site. They record all the links, the forms, the resources accessed and all other potential entry-points for the web application. [Probe identified potential entry points for reflected XSS vulnerability] The adversary uses the entry points gathered in the "Explore" phase as a target list and injects various common script payloads and special characters to determine if an entry point actually represents a vulnerability and to characterize the extent to which the vulnerability can be exploited. [Craft malicious XSS URL] Once the adversary has determined which parameters are vulnerable to XSS, they will craft a malicious URL containing the XSS exploit. The adversary can have many goals, from stealing session IDs, cookies, credentials, and page content from the victim. [Get victim to click URL] In order for the attack to be successful, the victim needs to access the malicious URL. |
Very High |
| 592 |
Stored XSS
An adversary utilizes a form of Cross-site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is persistently "stored" within the data storage of a vulnerable web application as valid input. [Survey the application for stored user-controllable inputs] Using a browser or an automated tool, an adversary follows all public links and actions on a web site. They record all the links, the forms, the resources accessed and all other potential entry-points for the web application. The adversary is looking for areas where user input is stored, such as user profiles, shopping carts, file managers, forums, blogs, and logs. [Probe identified potential entry points for stored XSS vulnerability] The adversary uses the entry points gathered in the "Explore" phase as a target list and injects various common script payloads and special characters to determine if an entry point actually represents a vulnerability and to characterize the extent to which the vulnerability can be exploited. [Store malicious XSS content] Once the adversary has determined which stored locations are vulnerable to XSS, they will interact with the web application to store the malicious content. The adversary can have many goals, from stealing session IDs, cookies, credentials, and page content from a victim. [Get victim to view stored content] In order for the attack to be successful, the victim needs to view the stored malicious content on the webpage. |
Very High |
| 63 |
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
An adversary embeds malicious scripts in content that will be served to web browsers. The goal of the attack is for the target software, the client-side browser, to execute the script with the users' privilege level. An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that are brought on by allowing remote hosts to execute code and scripts. Web browsers, for example, have some simple security controls in place, but if a remote attacker is allowed to execute scripts (through injecting them in to user-generated content like bulletin boards) then these controls may be bypassed. Further, these attacks are very difficult for an end user to detect. [Survey the application for user-controllable inputs] Using a browser or an automated tool, an attacker follows all public links and actions on a web site. They record all the links, the forms, the resources accessed and all other potential entry-points for the web application. [Probe identified potential entry points for XSS vulnerability] The attacker uses the entry points gathered in the "Explore" phase as a target list and injects various common script payloads to determine if an entry point actually represents a vulnerability and to characterize the extent to which the vulnerability can be exploited. [Steal session IDs, credentials, page content, etc.] As the attacker succeeds in exploiting the vulnerability, they can choose to steal user's credentials in order to reuse or to analyze them later on. [Forceful browsing] When the attacker targets the current application or another one (through CSRF vulnerabilities), the user will then be the one who perform the attacks without being aware of it. These attacks are mostly targeting application logic flaws, but it can also be used to create a widespread attack against a particular website on the user's current network (Internet or not). [Content spoofing] By manipulating the content, the attacker targets the information that the user would like to get from the website. |
Very High |
| 85 |
AJAX Footprinting
This attack utilizes the frequent client-server roundtrips in Ajax conversation to scan a system. While Ajax does not open up new vulnerabilities per se, it does optimize them from an attacker point of view. A common first step for an attacker is to footprint the target environment to understand what attacks will work. Since footprinting relies on enumeration, the conversational pattern of rapid, multiple requests and responses that are typical in Ajax applications enable an attacker to look for many vulnerabilities, well-known ports, network locations and so on. The knowledge gained through Ajax fingerprinting can be used to support other attacks, such as XSS. [Send request to target webpage and analyze HTML] Using a browser or an automated tool, an adversary sends requests to a webpage and records the received HTML response. Adversaries then analyze the HTML to identify any known underlying JavaScript architectures. This can aid in mappiong publicly known vulnerabilities to the webpage and can also helpo the adversary guess application architecture and the inner workings of a system. |
Low |
| 136 |
LDAP Injection
An attacker manipulates or crafts an LDAP query for the purpose of undermining the security of the target. Some applications use user input to create LDAP queries that are processed by an LDAP server. For example, a user might provide their username during authentication and the username might be inserted in an LDAP query during the authentication process. An attacker could use this input to inject additional commands into an LDAP query that could disclose sensitive information. For example, entering a * in the aforementioned query might return information about all users on the system. This attack is very similar to an SQL injection attack in that it manipulates a query to gather additional information or coerce a particular return value. [Survey application] The attacker takes an inventory of the entry points of the application. [Determine user-controllable input susceptible to LDAP injection] For each user-controllable input that the attacker suspects is vulnerable to LDAP injection, attempt to inject characters that have special meaning in LDAP (such as a single quote character, etc.). The goal is to create a LDAP query with an invalid syntax [Try to exploit the LDAP injection vulnerability] After determining that a given input is vulnerable to LDAP Injection, hypothesize what the underlying query looks like. Possibly using a tool, iteratively try to add logic to the query to extract information from the LDAP, or to modify or delete information in the LDAP. |
High |
| 15 |
Command Delimiters
An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that allows an attacker's commands to be concatenated onto a legitimate command with the intent of targeting other resources such as the file system or database. The system that uses a filter or denylist input validation, as opposed to allowlist validation is vulnerable to an attacker who predicts delimiters (or combinations of delimiters) not present in the filter or denylist. As with other injection attacks, the attacker uses the command delimiter payload as an entry point to tunnel through the application and activate additional attacks through SQL queries, shell commands, network scanning, and so on. [Assess Target Runtime Environment] In situations where the runtime environment is not implicitly known, the attacker makes connections to the target system and tries to determine the system's runtime environment. Knowing the environment is vital to choosing the correct delimiters. [Survey the Application] The attacker surveys the target application, possibly as a valid and authenticated user [Attempt delimiters in inputs] The attacker systematically attempts variations of delimiters on known inputs, observing the application's response each time. [Use malicious command delimiters] The attacker uses combinations of payload and carefully placed command delimiters to attack the software. |
High |
| 183 |
IMAP/SMTP Command Injection
An adversary exploits weaknesses in input validation on web-mail servers to execute commands on the IMAP/SMTP server. Web-mail servers often sit between the Internet and the IMAP or SMTP mail server. User requests are received by the web-mail servers which then query the back-end mail server for the requested information and return this response to the user. In an IMAP/SMTP command injection attack, mail-server commands are embedded in parts of the request sent to the web-mail server. If the web-mail server fails to adequately sanitize these requests, these commands are then sent to the back-end mail server when it is queried by the web-mail server, where the commands are then executed. This attack can be especially dangerous since administrators may assume that the back-end server is protected against direct Internet access and therefore may not secure it adequately against the execution of malicious commands. [Identify Target Web-Mail Server] The adversary first identifies the web-mail server they wish to exploit. [Identify Vulnerable Parameters] Once the adversary has identified a web-mail server, they identify any vulnerable parameters by altering their values in requests. The adversary knows that the parameter is vulnerable if the web-mail server returns an error of any sort. Ideally, the adversary is looking for a descriptive error message. [Determine Level of Injection] After identifying all vulnerable parameters, the adversary determines what level of injection is possible. [Inject IMAP/SMTP Commands] The adversary manipulates the vulnerable parameters to inject an IMAP/SMTP command and execute it on the mail-server. |
Medium |
| 248 |
Command Injection
An adversary looking to execute a command of their choosing, injects new items into an existing command thus modifying interpretation away from what was intended. Commands in this context are often standalone strings that are interpreted by a downstream component and cause specific responses. This type of attack is possible when untrusted values are used to build these command strings. Weaknesses in input validation or command construction can enable the attack and lead to successful exploitation. |
High |
| 40 |
Manipulating Writeable Terminal Devices
This attack exploits terminal devices that allow themselves to be written to by other users. The attacker sends command strings to the target terminal device hoping that the target user will hit enter and thereby execute the malicious command with their privileges. The attacker can send the results (such as copying /etc/passwd) to a known directory and collect once the attack has succeeded. [Identify attacker-writable terminals] Determine if users TTYs are writable by the attacker. [Execute malicious commands] Using one or more vulnerable TTY, execute commands to achieve various impacts. |
Very High |
| 43 |
Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers
An attacker supplies the target software with input data that contains sequences of special characters designed to bypass input validation logic. This exploit relies on the target making multiples passes over the input data and processing a "layer" of special characters with each pass. In this manner, the attacker can disguise input that would otherwise be rejected as invalid by concealing it with layers of special/escape characters that are stripped off by subsequent processing steps. The goal is to first discover cases where the input validation layer executes before one or more parsing layers. That is, user input may go through the following logic in an application: <parser1> --> <input validator> --> <parser2>. In such cases, the attacker will need to provide input that will pass through the input validator, but after passing through parser2, will be converted into something that the input validator was supposed to stop. [Determine application/system inputs where bypassing input validation is desired] The attacker first needs to determine all of the application's/system's inputs where input validation is being performed and where they want to bypass it. [Determine which character encodings are accepted by the application/system] The attacker then needs to provide various character encodings to the application/system and determine which ones are accepted. The attacker will need to observe the application's/system's response to the encoded data to determine whether the data was interpreted properly. [Combine multiple encodings accepted by the application.] The attacker now combines encodings accepted by the application. The attacker may combine different encodings or apply the same encoding multiple times. [Leverage ability to bypass input validation] Attacker leverages their ability to bypass input validation to gain unauthorized access to system. There are many attacks possible, and a few examples are mentioned here. |
High |
| 75 |
Manipulating Writeable Configuration Files
Generally these are manually edited files that are not in the preview of the system administrators, any ability on the attackers' behalf to modify these files, for example in a CVS repository, gives unauthorized access directly to the application, the same as authorized users. |
Very High |
| 76 |
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls
An attacker manipulates inputs to the target software which the target software passes to file system calls in the OS. The goal is to gain access to, and perhaps modify, areas of the file system that the target software did not intend to be accessible. [Fingerprinting of the operating system] In order to create a valid file injection, the attacker needs to know what the underlying OS is so that the proper file seperator is used. [Survey the Application to Identify User-controllable Inputs] The attacker surveys the target application to identify all user-controllable inputs, possibly as a valid and authenticated user [Vary inputs, looking for malicious results] Depending on whether the application being exploited is a remote or local one, the attacker crafts the appropriate malicious input containing the path of the targeted file or other file system control syntax to be passed to the application [Manipulate files accessible by the application] The attacker may steal information or directly manipulate files (delete, copy, flush, etc.) |
Very High |
Cybersecurity needs ?
Strengthen software security from the outset with our DevSecOps expertise
Integrate security right from the start of the software development cycle for more robust applications and greater customer confidence.
Our team of DevSecOps experts can help you secure your APIs, data pipelines, CI/CD chains, Docker containers and Kubernetes deployments.
Discover this offer
