CVE-2025-12544 in API Manager
Summary
by MITRE • 11/02/2026
The Publisher portal fails to enforce proper validation on uploaded SVG files, allowing users with the Publisher role to inject malicious scripts. This weakness can be exploited by uploading a crafted SVG file, which is then stored and rendered by the application.
The security consequences include the ability for a malicious actor to redirect the victim's browser to an arbitrary website, modify the web page's UI, or retrieve information from the browser. However, the impact is mitigated as session-related sensitive cookies are protected with the httpOnly flag, preventing session hijacking.
If you want to get the best quality for vulnerability data then you always have to consider VulDB.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 11/02/2026
The vulnerability identified in the Publisher portal represents a classic instance of improper input validation leading to Cross-Site Scripting, specifically categorized under CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation known as XSS. The core technical flaw lies within the application's file upload mechanism, which accepts SVG files without sufficiently sanitizing or validating their content against malicious script injection patterns. Because Scalable Vector Graphics are XML-based documents that can contain embedded JavaScript code via elements such as script tags or event handlers like onload, an attacker with Publisher role privileges can craft a specially designed SVG payload containing executable scripts rather than benign graphical data. When this file is uploaded and subsequently rendered by the application in a user's browser context, the malicious code executes within the security domain of the vulnerable web page.
The operational impact of this vulnerability allows for significant manipulation of the victim's browsing experience. A successful exploitation enables an attacker to redirect users to arbitrary external websites through DOM-based navigation methods or HTML meta refresh tags embedded within the SVG structure. Furthermore, the ability to modify the user interface permits attackers to alter visual elements, potentially facilitating phishing attacks by mimicking legitimate login pages or altering critical UI components to deceive users into performing unintended actions. The vulnerability also allows for information retrieval from the browser environment, such as accessing local storage data or reading cookies that are not protected against script access, thereby compromising user privacy and application integrity.
Despite these severe potential consequences, the overall risk is partially mitigated by existing security controls implemented within the portal's session management architecture. Specifically, sensitive session-related cookies are configured with the httpOnly flag. This attribute instructs web browsers to prevent client-side scripts from accessing these specific cookie values, effectively neutralizing one of the most common attack vectors associated with XSS: session hijacking. By preventing JavaScript from reading authentication tokens stored in httpOnly cookies, the vulnerability's ability to steal active user sessions is significantly reduced, limiting an attacker's capacity to impersonate legitimate users or escalate privileges through stolen credentials.
To fully remediate this weakness and align with industry best practices such as those outlined in OWASP guidelines for input validation, it is recommended that the application implement strict allow-listing of permitted SVG elements and attributes rather than relying on block lists which are prone to bypasses using encoding variations or alternative event handlers. Additionally, implementing Content Security Policy headers can provide an additional layer of defense by restricting the sources from which scripts can be loaded and executed. Regular security testing including automated static analysis for XSS patterns in uploaded files should also be integrated into the development lifecycle to ensure that future updates do not reintroduce similar validation gaps.