Vigilbase CVEConnect your agent

org.xwiki.contrib:application-ckeditor-ui vulnerable to Remote Code Execution via Cross-Site Request Forgery

Not in CISA KEVCVE-2023-22457CWE-352

Not confirmed exploited. 1 of 8 rule sources name it.

Edge rules
1/8
Our test
No exploit yet
CVSS
9.1
EPSS
19.3% Top 3%
Posts, 14d
02026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts
Published
2023-01-04
CKEditor Integration UI adds support for editing wiki pages using CKEditor. Prior to versions 1.64.3,t he `CKEditor.HTMLConverter` document lacked a protection against Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF), allowing to execute macros with the… More

CKEditor Integration UI adds support for editing wiki pages using CKEditor. Prior to versions 1.64.3,t he `CKEditor.HTMLConverter` document lacked a protection against Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF), allowing to execute macros with the rights of the current user. If a privileged user with programming rights was tricked into executing a GET request to this document with certain parameters (e.g., via an image with a corresponding URL embedded in a comment or via a redirect), this would allow arbitrary remote code execution and the attacker could gain rights, access private information or impact the availability of the wiki. The issue has been patched in the CKEditor Integration version 1.64.3. This has also been patched in the version of the CKEditor integration that is bundled starting with XWiki 14.6 RC1. There are no known workarounds for this other than upgrading the CKEditor integration to a fixed version.

Ask Vigil

AI · answers from this page
Ask about CVE-2023-22457: who's covered, what to patch first, how vendors compare. I cite sources and won't help with attacks.

Workers AI (Llama 3.3). Can be wrong: check the cited source.

Severity, decoded

CVSS 3.1
Critical · 9.0 / 10

Exploitable over the network, with low privileges and user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality, integrity and availability, and the impact can reach components beyond the vulnerable one.

Over the internetAny user loginNeeds a user to actWorks reliablySpreads beyond the appFull compromise
How the score is built8 metrics
  • 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 all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.
    High
  • Integrity impactAn attacker can change any data or files the affected component protects.
    High
  • Availability impactAn attacker can take the component down completely or keep it from serving anyone.
    High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
CISA's assessmentSSVC, from the CVE record
ExploitationProof of concept

Public exploit code or a detailed write-up exists, but CISA has not seen attacks.

AutomatableNo

At least one step needs hands-on work, which slows mass attacks.

Technical impactTotal

A successful attack gives full control over the affected software or all of its data.

Public exploits

None found
0 Metasploit0 Exploit-DB0 Scanner template0 GitHub PoCs

No exploit in Exploit-DB or Metasploit, and no scanner template. That lowers, but doesn't remove, the chance of mass exploitation.

Timeline

  1. 2023-01-04
    CVE published
    CVE List
  2. 2024-03-12
    F5 ships a rule
    XWiki Arbitrary Code Injection (2)

Social

2026-10-21: 0 posts2026-10-22: 0 posts2026-10-23: 0 posts2026-10-24: 0 posts2026-10-25: 0 posts2026-10-26: 0 posts2026-10-27: 0 posts2026-10-28: 0 posts2026-10-29: 0 posts2026-10-30: 0 posts2026-10-31: 0 posts2026-11-01: 0 posts2026-11-02: 0 posts2026-11-03: 0 posts

No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.

Vendor statements

Quoted
CloudflareWAF Managed RulesBefore feed history

The CVE predates the oldest entry in this vendor's public feed, so a rule may exist that we cannot see.

AWSAWS WAF Managed RulesNo public claim

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)No public claim

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 rulesBefore feed history

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 patchesBefore feed history

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)1 quoteRule published

First rule 2024-03-12, 433 days after the CVE was published.

2024-03-12New rule200104931Source
Added: signature 200104931 "XWiki Arbitrary Code Injection (2)" (Server Side Code Injection, risk High), systems: Java Servlets/JSP, Apache Tomcat. References: CVE-2022-36100, CVE-2023-22457.
AkamaiApp & API Protector (Adaptive Security Engine)No public source

This vendor publishes no machine-readable rule changelog we can check.

OWASP CRSCore Rule Set (open source, used inside many WAFs)No public claim

We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. CRS rarely names CVEs: it relies on generic detections. Our own lab measures what it actually blocks.