Improper neutralization of input during web page generation in Apache Wicket.
org.apache.wicket.extensions.markup.html.basic.SmartLinkLabel and org.apache.wicket.extensions.markup.html.basic.SmartLinkMultiLineLabel display a text value and turn any URL they find in it into a hyperlink. Both escape the model value and then hand the escaped text to org.apache.wicket.extensions.markup.html.basic.DefaultLinkParser, which searches it for anything of the form scheme://rest and wraps each match in an anchor whose href is the matched text, copied in as it is. The pattern accepts any scheme, and there is no list of permitted schemes anywhere on the path. A text value naming a scheme that executes script therefore becomes an anchor that executes it, in the application's origin and in the reader's own session, when the reader clicks the link. Rendering the page is not enough on its own; the link has to be activated. Escaping does not prevent this and is not the issue: the characters the payload needs are all valid in a URL and are ones that org.apache.wicket.util.string.Strings#escapeMarkup() leaves alone, and the value ends up in a URL rather than in element text, which is a context that escaping model data does not make safe.
An application is affected where it renders text it received through either of these two components. That is what they are for: they exist to linkify email addresses and web URLs found in the data an application is displaying, so untrusted input is the purpose of the feature rather than a misuse of it, and no unusual configuration is involved. No other component uses this parser, and an application that uses neither SmartLinkLabel nor SmartLinkMultiLineLabel is not affected.
On 9.x and 10.x the Content-Security-Policy Wicket sends by default admits script only from a source carrying a per-response nonce, and a URL whose scheme executes script cannot carry one, so that default policy stops the script from running. This is a property of the default policy and not of these components. An application that has weakened or disabled its Content-Security-Policy, for this or for any unrelated reason, is affected in full. Wicket 8.x has no Content-Security-Policy support at all and is affected as it stands.
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 (7.4): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 7.4 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
- EG Severity
- 7.4 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