CVE-2023-38488
No source can show you its own past. This one can.
Print this page to keep the view as it stands on this date. Everything hidden behind a disclosure opens, and every receipt prints with its value.
Kirby vulnerable to field injection in the KirbyData text storage handler
rank 28 = 0 + 22 + 0 + 6 + 0
rank@v1 · scheduled
Someone is already using it
CISA KEV catalog · public proof-of-concept · FIRST EPSS
EPSS 0.00924 · without this subject the record ranks 28
What it costs you if it fires
NVD CVSS base score, then the CNA's own
CVSS 8.8, from NVD · without this subject the record ranks 6
It is getting worse, not staying still
FIRST EPSS series, rescorings and bad loads removed
no persisting rise in 365 days · without this subject the record ranks 28
How much of the world it touches
NVD CPE configurations
5 products in the CPE ranges · without this subject the record ranks 22
Someone else already set the date
CISA KEV remediation due date
no CISA due date · without this subject the record ranks 28
$33,100 = $4.99M incident cost x 0.7179585840212677 exposure x 0.00924 likelihood
udv@v1 · unaudited · wrong for you until you say what you run
$4.99M is the cost of a breach that happened, from IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2026, global average. It is not the value of any asset of yours. That average already covers breaches of every severity, so scaling it by exposure understates a partial-impact record. That is an assumption, not a measurement. Your own asset value goes in the decision record.
Hindsight · the state
Foresight · where to check next
No weakness class or product neighbourhood is held for this record, so this index cannot name anywhere to check next. That is an absence in the record, not a finding about the software.
Sources disagree here.
Both shown, dated. We don't pick winners. disagreement-rules@v1
Running getkirby kirby? Check your version
A deterministic range check against the ranges this record publishes. It tells you where a version sits in the record, not whether your deployment is exploitable. No account needed.
Watch this record
Matches your own product list against every record this index holds, and tells you when one of them moves.
Set up a watchlist (needs a Practitioner account)
Record your call
Keep your verdict, your reason and the evidence together. The record takes its date when you save it.
AcceptDeferPatch by…Not affectedMitigatedChoose your verdict, then sign in or use an email link. Your first 100 records are free. Evidence is frozen when the record is created.
Private to your organization unless you share it. Put the proof link in your ticket so a reviewer can inspect the basis for your call. See how decision records work.
Harm, if it fires from the vector and the weakness
Written for the ticket you're about to file.
CISA KEV & Federal Remediation Deadline from the record and CISA
The fix, and how long it's been waiting.
Exploit Status & Known PoCs a ladder, not a score
Current rung: Nothing observed in held sources.
- RUNG 1Nothing observed in held sources
- RUNG 2Proof-of-concept published
- RUNG 3Exploited in the wild · CISA KEV listed
- RUNG 4Ransomware campaign use known
Affected & Fixed Versions as published
Show all 5 published ranges
A rung lights from a row in the index, never from an assessment. "Held sources" is the true scope of the claim: this index reads the CVE record, NVD, CISA KEV, FIRST's EPSS and public proof-of-concept repositories, and it does not observe attacks.
Attack path
What it is stated by the CNA
Kirby is a content management system. A vulnerability in versions prior to 3.5.8.3, 3.6.6.3, 3.7.5.2, 3.8.4.1, and 3.9.6 affects all Kirby sites that might have potential attackers in the group of authenticated Panel users or that allow external visitors to update a Kirby content file (e.g. via a contact or comment form). Kirby sites are *not* affected if they don't allow write access for untrusted users or visitors. A field injection in a content storage implementation is a type of vulnerability that allows attackers with content write access to overwrite content fields that the site developer didn't intend to be modified. receipt
Read the rest of the CNA's description
In a Kirby site this can be used to alter site content, break site behavior or inject malicious data or code. The exact security risk depends on the field type and usage. Kirby stores content of the site, of pages, files and users in text files by default. The text files use Kirby's KirbyData format where each field is separated by newlines and a line with four dashes (`----`). When reading a KirbyData file, the affected code first removed the Unicode BOM sequence from the file contents and afterwards split the content into fields by the field separator. When writing to a KirbyData file, field separators in field data are escaped to prevent user input from interfering with the field structure. However this escaping could be tricked by including a Unicode BOM sequence in a field separator (e.g. `--\xEF\xBB\xBF--`). When writing, this was not detected as a separator, but because the BOM was removed during reading, it could be abused by attackers to inject other field data into content files. Because each field can only be defined once per content file, this vulnerability only affects fields in the content file that were defined above the vulnerable user-writable field or not at all. Fields that are defined below the vulnerable field override the injected field content and were therefore already protected. The problem has been patched in Kirby 3.5.8.3, 3.6.6.3, 3.7.5.2, 3.8.4.1, and 3.9.6. In all of the mentioned releases, the maintainers have fixed the affected code to only remove the Unicode BOM sequence at the beginning of the file. This fixes this vulnerability both for newly written as well as for existing content files.
NVD's analysis a second authority
- severity
- 8.8 CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- weakness
- CWE-140; CWE-863
- affected versions
- getkirby kirby >= 3.5.0 < 3.5.8.3; getkirby kirby >= 3.6.0 < 3.6.6.3; getkirby kirby >= 3.7.0 < 3.7.5.2; and 2 more, listed in full below
- also scored by
- [email protected] 7.1 CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L
The CNA scored it 7.1 and NVD 8.8. Both are shown because both were published; we do not pick one.
check it yourself github.com github.com github.com github.com github.com github.com +1 morereceipt
Movement the material steps
Show all 18 observations
18 observations held. A highlighted step crossed a promotion threshold. A step marked with a scoring model moved because the instrument was replaced, not because the vulnerability changed. receipt
The full biography
The record had been public for 3 years when this index was last written.
Siblings and hubs
Records related to this one
None. No alias set, and nothing in the corpus cites this identifier or shares its product family within 60 days.
Browse the index from here
These are index-wide views, not findings about CVE-2023-38488.
What usually comes next
Everything above needs no account. What is below is work: assembling it, scoping it to your estate, watching it, and handing it to someone else.