Cloud Software Group Citrix Session Recording
Not confirmed exploited. 1 of 8 rule sources name it.
Cross SiteScripting vulnerability in Citrix Session Recording allows attacker to perform Cross Site Scripting
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 under specific conditions, with high privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality and low impact on integrity.
How the score is built
- Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.Network
- Attack complexityThe attack only works when conditions outside the attacker's control line up.High
- Privileges requiredThe attacker needs an administrator-level account.High
- User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.None
- ScopeThe damage stays within the vulnerable component.Unchanged
- Confidentiality impactAn attacker can read all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.High
- 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:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:NCISA has seen no public exploit and no attacks.
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
- 2024-01-18CVE publishedCVE List
- 2024-05-21F5 ships a ruleCitrix Session Recording Remote Code Execution
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)
First rule 2024-05-21, 124 days after the CVE was published.
Added: signature 200104960 "Citrix Session Recording Remote Code Execution" (Server Side Code Injection, risk High), systems: Microsoft Windows, IIS, Citrix. References: CVE-2023-6184.
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)
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.
Social
No posts seen yet on X, Bluesky, Mastodon, Hacker News or GitHub.