OpenPLC ScadaBR Cross-site Scripting Vulnerability
Exploited since 2025-11-28. No WAF vendor names it yet.
OpenPLC ScadaBR through 0.9.1 on Linux and through 1.12.4 on Windows allows stored XSS via system_settings.shtm.
Edge coverage
Claimed by vendorsAsk Vigil
AI · answers from this pageWorkers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.
Severity, decoded
CVSS 3.1Exploitable over the network, with low privileges and user interaction, leading to low impact on confidentiality and integrity, and the impact can reach components beyond the vulnerable one.
How the score is built
- Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.Network
- Attack complexityNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.Low
- Privileges requiredThe attacker needs an ordinary user account.Low
- User interactionA user has to do something first, such as open a file or click a link.Required
- ScopeThe attack can spread beyond the vulnerable component to other parts of the system.Changed
- Confidentiality impactAn attacker can read some data, but has no control over what they get.Low
- Integrity impactAn attacker can change some data, but with limited control or limited effect.Low
- Availability impactThe component keeps working normally.None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:NAttackers are exploiting this in the wild.
At least one step needs hands-on work, which slows mass attacks.
A successful attack gives limited control over the affected software or limited access to its data.
Public exploits
None foundNo exploit in Exploit-DB or Metasploit, and no scanner template. That lowers, but doesn't remove, the chance of mass exploitation.
Timeline
- 2021-06-11CVE publishedCVE List
- 2025-11-28Added to CISA KEVConfirmed exploitation in the wild
Vendor statements
QuotedCloudflareWAF Managed Rules
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
AWSAWS WAF Managed Rules
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. AWS often describes a vulnerability without naming its CVE (for example "Log4j"). We count only entries that name the CVE, so AWS coverage is understated.
Microsoft AzureFront Door and Application Gateway WAF (DRS)
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. The rule tables name CVEs but carry no dates, so Azure is left out of every time-to-rule figure.
Google CloudCloud Armor preconfigured WAF rules
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
FastlyNext-Gen WAF virtual patches
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
F5Attack signatures (Distributed Cloud WAF)
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)
This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.
OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)
The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.
Social
No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.