XWiki Platform: Password and email exposure in xml.vm fields
Not confirmed exploited. 1 of 8 rule sources name it. Our CRS test: not blocked.
XWiki Platform is a generic wiki platform offering runtime services for applications built on top of it. XWiki Platform Legacy Old Core and XWiki Platform Old Core versions 1.1 through 16.4.6, 16.5.0-rc-1 through 16.10.4 and 17.0.0-rc-1… More
XWiki Platform is a generic wiki platform offering runtime services for applications built on top of it. XWiki Platform Legacy Old Core and XWiki Platform Old Core versions 1.1 through 16.4.6, 16.5.0-rc-1 through 16.10.4 and 17.0.0-rc-1 through 17.1.0, the XML export of a page in XWiki that can be triggered by any user with view rights on a page by appending ?xpage=xml to the URL includes password and email properties stored on a document that aren't named password or email. This is fixed in versions 16.4.7, 16.10.5 and 17.2.0-rc-1. To work around this issue, the file templates/xml.vm in the deployed WAR can be deleted if the XML isn't needed. There isn't any feature in XWiki itself that depends on the XML export.
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, with no privileges and no user interaction, leading to full loss of confidentiality.
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 works without any special deployment or timing conditions.None
- Privileges requiredNo account or login is needed.None
- User interactionNo one has to click or open anything; the attack works on its own.None
- 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)Data cannot be changed by the attacker.None
- Availability impact (vulnerable system)The component keeps working normally.None
- Confidentiality impact (other systems)Other systems' data is not exposed.None
- Integrity impact (other systems)Other systems' data cannot be changed.None
- Availability impact (other systems)Other systems keep working normally.None
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:NPublic exploit code or a detailed write-up exists, but CISA has not seen attacks.
Attackers can script the attack end to end and hit many targets at once.
A successful attack gives limited control over the affected software or limited access to its data.
Public exploits
1 found- NucleiCVE-2025-54125.yamldetection template, replayed in our lab
Links are to third-party code: never run it outside an isolated lab.
Timeline
- 2025-08-05CVE publishedCVE List
- 2025-12-03F5 ships a ruleXWiki Information Disclosure (7)
- 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 2025-12-03, 120 days after the CVE was published.
Added: signature 200009341 "XWiki Information Disclosure (7)" (Information Leakage, risk High), systems: Java Servlets/JSP, Apache Tomcat. References: CVE-2025-54125.
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.