CVE-2025-0133
18h07 +00:00
CVE 설명
PAN-OS: Reflected Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) Vulnerability in GlobalProtect Gateway and Portal
A reflected cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the GlobalProtect™ gateway and portal features of Palo Alto Networks PAN-OS® software enables execution of malicious JavaScript in the context of an authenticated Captive Portal user's browser when they click on a specially crafted link. The primary risk is phishing attacks that can lead to credential theft—particularly if you enabled Clientless VPN. There is no availability impact to GlobalProtect features or GlobalProtect users. Attackers cannot use this vulnerability to tamper with or modify contents or configurations of the GlobalProtect portal or gateways. The integrity impact of this vulnerability is limited to enabling an attacker to create phishing and credential-stealing links that appear to be hosted on the GlobalProtect portal. For GlobalProtect users with Clientless VPN enabled, there is a limited impact on confidentiality due to inherent risks of Clientless VPN that facilitate credential theft. You can read more about this risk in the informational bulletin PAN-SA-2025-0005 https://security.paloaltonetworks.com/PAN-SA-2025-0005 https://security.paloaltonetworks.com/PAN-SA-2025-0005 . There is no impact to confidentiality for GlobalProtect users if you did not enable (or you disable) Clientless VPN.CVE 해결 방법
CVE 정보
관련 약점
| 약점 이름 | 출처 | |
|---|---|---|
| Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users. |
메트릭
| 메트릭 | 점수 | 심각도 | CVSS 벡터 | 출처 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V4.0 | 1.2 | LOW |
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/AU:N/R:U/V:D/U:Amber
추가 정보
Base: Exploitabilty MetricsThe Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the “thing that is vulnerable”, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable system. Attack Vector This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. Network The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers). Attack Complexity This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. Low The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system. Attack Requirements This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. None The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability. Privileges Required This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. None The attacker is unauthenticated prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack. User Interaction This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. Active Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a targeted user to perform specific, conscious interactions with the vulnerable system and the attacker’s payload, or the user’s interactions would actively subvert protection mechanisms which would lead to exploitation of the vulnerability. Examples include: importing a file into a vulnerable system in a specific manner placing files into a specific directory prior to executing code submitting a specific string into a web application (e.g. reflected or self XSS) dismiss or accept prompts or security warnings prior to taking an action (e.g. opening/editing a file, connecting a device). Base: Impact MetricsThe Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve. Confidentiality Impact This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the system due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. None There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System. Integrity Impact This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Low Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Vulnerable System. Availability Impact This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted system resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. None There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System. Sub Confidentiality Impact Negligible There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System. Sub Integrity Impact None There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System. Sub Availability Impact None There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System. Threat MetricsThe Threat metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability for a vulnerability. Exploit Code Maturity This metric measures the likelihood of the vulnerability being attacked, and is based on the current state of exploit techniques, exploit code availability, or active, 'in-the-wild' exploitation. Unreported Based on available threat intelligence each of the following must apply: No knowledge of publicly available proof-of-concept exploit code No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability (i.e., neither the “POC” nor “Attacked” values apply) Environmental MetricsThese metrics enable the consumer analyst to customize the resulting score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of complementary/alternative security controls in place, Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. The metrics are the modified equivalent of Base metrics and are assigned values based on the system placement within organizational infrastructure. Supplemental MetricsSupplemental metric group provides new metrics that describe and measure additional extrinsic attributes of a vulnerability. While the assessment of Supplemental metrics is provisioned by the provider, the usage and response plan of each metric within the Supplemental metric group is determined by the consumer. Automatable The “Automatable” metric captures the answer to the question ”Can an attacker automate exploitation events for this vulnerability across multiple targets?” based on steps 1-4 of the kill chain2 [Hutchins et al., 2011]. These steps are reconnaissance, weaponization, delivery, and exploitation. If evaluated, the metric can take the values no or yes. No Attackers cannot reliably automate all 4 steps of the kill chain for this vulnerability for some reason. These steps are reconnaissance, weaponization, delivery, and exploitation. Recovery Recovery describes the resilience of a system to recover services, in terms of performance and availability, after an attack has been performed. User The system requires manual intervention by the user to recover services, after an attack has been performed. Value Density Value Density describes the resources that the attacker will gain control over with a single exploitation event. It has two possible values, diffuse and concentrated: Diffuse The vulnerable system has limited resources. That is, the resources that the attacker will gain control over with a single exploitation event are relatively small. An example of Diffuse (think: limited) Value Density would be an attack on a single email client vulnerability. Provider Urgency Many vendors currently provide supplemental severity ratings to consumers via product security advisories. Amber Provider has assessed the impact of this vulnerability as having a moderate urgency. |
|
| V4.0 | 2.7 | LOW |
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/S:N/AU:N/R:U/V:D/RE:M/U:Amber
추가 정보
Base: Exploitabilty MetricsThe Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the “thing that is vulnerable”, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable system. Attack Vector This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. Network The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers). Attack Complexity This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. Low The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system. Attack Requirements This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. None The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability. Privileges Required This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. None The attacker is unauthenticated prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack. User Interaction This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. None The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker. Examples include: a remote attacker is able to send packets to a target system a locally authenticated attacker executes code to elevate privileges Base: Impact MetricsThe Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve. Confidentiality Impact This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the system due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Low There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the Vulnerable System. Integrity Impact This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Low Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Vulnerable System. Availability Impact This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted system resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. None There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System. Sub Confidentiality Impact Negligible There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System. Sub Integrity Impact None There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System. Sub Availability Impact None There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System. Threat MetricsThe Threat metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability for a vulnerability. Exploit Code Maturity This metric measures the likelihood of the vulnerability being attacked, and is based on the current state of exploit techniques, exploit code availability, or active, 'in-the-wild' exploitation. Unreported Based on available threat intelligence each of the following must apply: No knowledge of publicly available proof-of-concept exploit code No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability (i.e., neither the “POC” nor “Attacked” values apply) Environmental MetricsThese metrics enable the consumer analyst to customize the resulting score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of complementary/alternative security controls in place, Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. The metrics are the modified equivalent of Base metrics and are assigned values based on the system placement within organizational infrastructure. Supplemental MetricsSupplemental metric group provides new metrics that describe and measure additional extrinsic attributes of a vulnerability. While the assessment of Supplemental metrics is provisioned by the provider, the usage and response plan of each metric within the Supplemental metric group is determined by the consumer. Automatable The “Automatable” metric captures the answer to the question ”Can an attacker automate exploitation events for this vulnerability across multiple targets?” based on steps 1-4 of the kill chain2 [Hutchins et al., 2011]. These steps are reconnaissance, weaponization, delivery, and exploitation. If evaluated, the metric can take the values no or yes. No Attackers cannot reliably automate all 4 steps of the kill chain for this vulnerability for some reason. These steps are reconnaissance, weaponization, delivery, and exploitation. Recovery Recovery describes the resilience of a system to recover services, in terms of performance and availability, after an attack has been performed. User The system requires manual intervention by the user to recover services, after an attack has been performed. Safety Like all Supplemental Metrics, providing a value for Safety is completely optional. Suppliers and vendors (AKA: scoring providers) may or may not provide Safety as a Supplemental Metric as they see fit. Negligible Consequences of the vulnerability meet definition of IEC 61508 consequence category 'negligible'. Value Density Value Density describes the resources that the attacker will gain control over with a single exploitation event. It has two possible values, diffuse and concentrated: Diffuse The vulnerable system has limited resources. That is, the resources that the attacker will gain control over with a single exploitation event are relatively small. An example of Diffuse (think: limited) Value Density would be an attack on a single email client vulnerability. Vulnerability Response Effort The intention of the Vulnerability Response Effort metric is to provide supplemental information on how difficult it is for consumers to provide an initial response to the impact of vulnerabilities for deployed products and services in their infrastructure. Moderate The actions required to respond to a vulnerability require some effort on behalf of the consumer and could cause minimal service impact to implement. Examples include: simple remote update, disabling of a subsystem, or a low-touch software upgrade such as a driver update. Provider Urgency Many vendors currently provide supplemental severity ratings to consumers via product security advisories. Amber Provider has assessed the impact of this vulnerability as having a moderate urgency. |
