CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
LOW

CVE-2018-25037

CVE-2018-25037 — Thomson TCW710 RgDdns Persistent cross site scriting

A vulnerability was found in Thomson TCW710 ST5D.10.05 and classified as problematic. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file /goform/RgDdns. The manipulation of the argument DdnsHostName with the input ><script>alert(1)</script> as part of POST Request leads to cross site scripting (Persistent). The attack may be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.

Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, VulDB

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

1%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

thomson

tcw710

CVSS base

3.5

LOW

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

PoC

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

No

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Partial

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Affected scope

The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.

Vendors (1)

thomson

Products (1)

tcw710

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
3.5CVSS 3.1LOW——cvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-80

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

  • Search application, proxy, and WAF logs for requests touching /goform/RgDdns, /script.

References

2 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

  • thomsonevery CVE for this vendor
  • CWE-80other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.