SSRF and Reflected XSS Vulnerability in Deprecated Try-It Feature of Multiple WSO2 Products
Not confirmed exploited. 1 of 8 rule sources name it. Our CRS test: not blocked.
SSRF and Reflected XSS Vulnerabilities exist in multiple WSO2 products within the deprecated Try-It feature, which was accessible only to administrative users. This feature accepted user-supplied URLs without proper validation, leading to… More
SSRF and Reflected XSS Vulnerabilities exist in multiple WSO2 products within the deprecated Try-It feature, which was accessible only to administrative users. This feature accepted user-supplied URLs without proper validation, leading to server-side request forgery (SSRF). Additionally, the retrieved content was directly reflected in the HTTP response, enabling reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) in the admin user's browser context. By tricking an administrator into accessing a crafted link, an attacker could force the server to fetch malicious content and reflect it into the admin’s browser, leading to arbitrary JavaScript execution for UI manipulation or data exfiltration. While session cookies are protected with the HttpOnly flag, the XSS still poses a significant security risk. Furthermore, SSRF can be used by a privileged user to query internal services, potentially aiding in internal network enumeration if the target endpoints are reachable from the affected product.
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 from an adjacent network, with high privileges and no user interaction, leading to low impact on confidentiality, integrity and availability, and the impact can reach components beyond the vulnerable one.
How the score is built
- Attack vectorAn attacker must be on the same local network, Wi-Fi or VPN segment.Adjacent network
- Attack complexityNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.Low
- 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 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 impactAn attacker can slow the component down or interrupt it now and then.Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A: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
1 found- NucleiCVE-2025-5350.yamldetection template, replayed in our lab
Links are to third-party code: never run it outside an isolated lab.
Timeline
- 2025-10-24CVE publishedCVE List
- 2026-01-20F5 ships a ruleWSO2 Authentication Bypass
- 2026-11-02Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set let it throughparanoia level 1, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
- 2026-11-02Our test: OWASP Core Rule Set let it throughparanoia level 2, anomaly threshold 5, default CRS settings
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 2026-01-20, 88 days after the CVE was published.
Added: signature 200013159 "WSO2 Authentication Bypass" (Authentication/Authorization Attacks, risk Medium), systems: Java Servlets/JSP. References: CVE-2025-5350, CVE-2025-5605.
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.