Apache Wicket reads texts from the application's resource bundles — a localized label, a css class name — and writes some of them into the JavaScript and the markup it generates for a component. Those texts are placed inside single-quoted JavaScript string literals and inside quoted attribute values without being escaped for that context, so a text containing a quote ends the literal or the attribute, and what follows is parsed as script or as markup in the application's origin when the page loads.
A resource bundle entry is authored for the application and does not say where the framework will write it. The same key is read by the framework into element text, where Wicket escapes it, and into the contexts below, where it did not. A text containing an apostrophe, which is ordinary in several languages, is enough to break the page; a text under the influence of another party is enough to run script.
In org.apache.wicket:wicket-core, org.apache.wicket.markup.html.form.upload.MultiFileUploadField writes the org.apache.wicket.mfu.delete message into a JavaScript string literal, and org.apache.wicket.markup.html.form.Form writes the hidden-fields css class into the class attribute of the container it renders for its hidden fields; on 8.0.0 through 8.19.0 and 9.0.0 through 9.24.0 Form#appendDefaultButtonField writes the same css class into a second container. In org.apache.wicket:wicket-extensions, UploadProgressBar writes its UploadProgressBar.starting text into a JavaScript string literal, FilterForm writes the hidden-fields css class into the class attribute of its hidden input markup, and on 9.0.0 through 9.24.0 and 10.0.0 through 10.11.0 TrapFocusBehavior writes its current css class into a JavaScript string literal.
The Content-Security-Policy that Apache Wicket 9.x and 10.x send by default does not prevent the JavaScript cases: the generated script is written into a script element carrying the per-response nonce, so the injected code is part of a script the policy admits. It does prevent an inline event handler injected through the attribute cases.
This issue affects Apache Wicket: from 8.0.0 through 8.19.0, from 9.0.0 through 9.24.0, from 10.0.0 through 10.11.0. Users of Apache Wicket 7.x or older, which are no longer supported, should upgrade to a supported version. Users are recommended to upgrade to version 8.20.0, 9.25.0 or 10.12.0, which fix the issue.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (7.6): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.6 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.6 HIGHCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.a secondary CVSS source · CVSS v3.0 or v3.1
- EG Likelihood
- Unknown (no EPSS on record)Unknown, not low: FIRST has published no EPSS probability for this CVE.
- Confirmed exploitation
- None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
- EG Priority
- SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
The CVE record names the fixed release. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CVSS v4.0 confidentiality and integrity impact both High). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table
BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CVSS v4.0 confidentiality and integrity impact both High). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it