Sitecore Experience Remote Code Execution through Insecure Deserialization
Not confirmed exploited. 2 of 8 rule sources name it; Cloudflare blocks by default.
Deserialization of Untrusted Data vulnerability in Sitecore Experience Manager (XM), Sitecore Experience Platform (XP) allows Remote Code Execution (RCE).This issue affects Experience Manager (XM): from 9.0 through 9.3, from 10.0 through… More
Deserialization of Untrusted Data vulnerability in Sitecore Experience Manager (XM), Sitecore Experience Platform (XP) allows Remote Code Execution (RCE).This issue affects Experience Manager (XM): from 9.0 through 9.3, from 10.0 through 10.4; Experience Platform (XP): from 9.0 through 9.3, from 10.0 through 10.4.
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 no user interaction, leading to full loss of 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 special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.Low
- Privileges requiredThe attacker needs an ordinary user account.Low
- 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 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:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HPublic exploit code or a detailed write-up exists, but CISA has not seen attacks.
At least one step needs hands-on work, which slows mass attacks.
A successful attack gives full control over the affected software or all of 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
- 2025-09-03CVE publishedCVE List
- 2025-09-04Cloudflare ships a ruleSitecore - Remote Code Execution - CVE:CVE-2025-53691
- 2025-12-03F5 ships a ruleSitecore Unsafe Deserialization (2)
Vendor statements
QuotedCloudflareWAF Managed Rules
First rule 2025-09-04, 1 day after the CVE was published.
Sitecore - Remote Code Execution - CVE:CVE-2025-53691. Previous action: N/A. New action: Block. This is a new detection
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 2025-12-03, 91 days after the CVE was published.
Added: signature 200204029 "Sitecore Unsafe Deserialization (2)" (Server Side Code Injection, risk High), systems: Microsoft Windows, IIS, ASP, ASP.NET. References: CVE-2025-53691.
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.