CVE-2025-58174 — LAM profile editor stored cross-site scripting vulnerability

LDAP Account Manager (LAM) is a webfrontend for managing entries stored in an LDAP directory. LAM before 9.3 allows stored cross-site scripting in the Profile section via the profile name field, which renders untrusted input as HTML and executes a supplied script (for example a script element). An authenticated user with permission to create or edit a profile can insert a script payload into the profile name and have it executed when the profile data is viewed in a browser. This issue is fixed in version 9.3. No known workarounds are mentioned.

Published Sep 16, 2025Updated Sep 16, 2025Sources: cvelistV5, GitHub_M

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

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

ldapaccountmanager

lam

CVSS base

4.6

MEDIUM

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

None

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

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)

ldapaccountmanager

Products (1)

lam

Every base score collected

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

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Source
4.6	CVSS 3.1	MEDIUM	—	—	cvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-79

References

1 on the record

github.com/LDAPAccountManager/lam/security/advisories/GHSA-6gqg-wm9x-5x3m
x_refsource_CONFIRM

Elsewhere on this site

ldapaccountmanagerevery CVE for this vendor
CWE-79other 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.