Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
Not confirmed exploited. 1 of 8 rule sources name it.
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) in NetScaler ADC and NetScaler Gateway when the appliance is configured as a Gateway (VPN virtual server, ICA Proxy, CVPN, RDP Proxy) OR AAA virtual server
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 4.0Exploitable over the network under specific conditions, with no privileges and deliberate user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality and low impact on integrity and availability; other systems can also be hit (low impact on confidentiality, integrity and availability).
How the score is built
- Attack vectorAn attacker can reach it over the internet; no access to your network needed.Network
- Attack complexityNo built-in defences have to be bypassed; the attack works reliably.Low
- Attack requirementsThe attack only works under specific conditions, such as a race or a particular setup.Present
- Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.None
- User interactionA user has to take deliberate steps, such as ignore a warning or run something.Active
- Confidentiality impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can read all data the affected component holds, or the most sensitive parts of it.High
- Integrity impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can change some data, but with limited control or limited effect.Low
- Availability impact (vulnerable system)An attacker can slow the component down or interrupt it now and then.Low
- Confidentiality impact (other systems)Other systems that rely on it can have some data read.Low
- Integrity impact (other systems)Other systems that rely on it can have some data changed.Low
- Availability impact (other systems)Other systems that rely on it can be slowed down or interrupted.Low
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:L/VA:L/SC:L/SI:L/SA:LCISA 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
- 2025-11-11CVE publishedCVE List
- 2025-12-04F5 ships a ruleCitrix NetScaler RXSS
Vendor statements
QuotedCloudflareWAF 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. Each row gives the rule ID and its default action. The feed starts in January 2025, so older rules are missing.
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
We found no public statement from this vendor naming this CVE. That is not proof of no protection: generic rules may still catch it. Google names few CVEs: the release notes start in May 2024 and the rules reference lists CVEs without dates. Its cve-canary rules are opt-in.
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 2025-12-04, 23 days after the CVE was published.
Added: signature 200201003 "Citrix NetScaler RXSS" (Cross Site Scripting (XSS), risk Medium), systems: Citrix. References: CVE-2025-12101.
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.