FKIE_CVE-2025-24028
Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2025-02-07 23:15 - Updated: 2026-06-17 08:57
Severity
7.8 (High) - CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
9.6 (Critical) - CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
9.6 (Critical) - CVSS:3.1/
Summary
Joplin is a free, open source note taking and to-do application, which can handle a large number of notes organised into notebooks. This vulnerability is caused by differences between how Joplin's HTML sanitizer handles comments and how the browser handles comments. This affects both the Rich Text Editor and the Markdown viewer. However, unlike the Rich Text Editor, the Markdown viewer is `cross-origin isolated`, which prevents JavaScript from directly accessing functions/variables in the toplevel Joplin `window`. This issue is not present in Joplin 3.1.24 and may have been introduced in `9b50539`. This is an XSS vulnerability that impacts users that open untrusted notes in the Rich Text Editor. This vulnerability has been addressed in version 3.2.12 and all users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability.
References
Impacted products
| Vendor | Product | Version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| joplin_project | joplin | * |
{
"affected": [
{
"affectedData": [
{
"product": "joplin",
"vendor": "laurent22",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003e= 3.2.6, \u003c 3.2.12"
}
]
}
],
"source": "security-advisories@github.com"
}
],
"configurations": [
{
"nodes": [
{
"cpeMatch": [
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:joplin_project:joplin:*:*:*:*:*:-:*:*",
"matchCriteriaId": "A5039B9E-A299-42D9-AFBD-1416989AB562",
"versionEndExcluding": "3.2.12",
"vulnerable": true
}
],
"negate": false,
"operator": "OR"
}
]
}
],
"cveTags": [],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "Joplin is a free, open source note taking and to-do application, which can handle a large number of notes organised into notebooks. This vulnerability is caused by differences between how Joplin\u0027s HTML sanitizer handles comments and how the browser handles comments. This affects both the Rich Text Editor and the Markdown viewer. However, unlike the Rich Text Editor, the Markdown viewer is `cross-origin isolated`, which prevents JavaScript from directly accessing functions/variables in the toplevel Joplin `window`. This issue is not present in Joplin 3.1.24 and may have been introduced in `9b50539`. This is an XSS vulnerability that impacts users that open untrusted notes in the Rich Text Editor. This vulnerability has been addressed in version 3.2.12 and all users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability."
},
{
"lang": "es",
"value": "Joplin es una aplicaci\u00f3n de c\u00f3digo abierto y gratuita para tomar notas y realizar tareas pendientes, que puede gestionar una gran cantidad de notas organizadas en cuadernos. Esta vulnerabilidad se debe a diferencias entre la forma en que el depurador HTML de Joplin gestiona los comentarios y la forma en que el navegador los gestiona. Esto afecta tanto al editor de texto enriquecido como al visor de Markdown. Sin embargo, a diferencia del editor de texto enriquecido, el visor de Markdown est\u00e1 \"aislado en todos los or\u00edgenes\", lo que impide que JavaScript acceda directamente a funciones o variables en la \"ventana\" de nivel superior de Joplin. Este problema no est\u00e1 presente en Joplin 3.1.24 y puede haberse introducido en \"9b50539\". Se trata de una vulnerabilidad XSS que afecta a los usuarios que abren notas que no son de confianza en el editor de texto enriquecido. Esta vulnerabilidad se ha solucionado en la versi\u00f3n 3.2.12 y se recomienda a todos los usuarios que actualicen. No se conocen workarounds para esta vulnerabilidad."
}
],
"id": "CVE-2025-24028",
"lastModified": "2026-06-17T08:57:55.153",
"metrics": {
"cvssMetricV31": [
{
"cvssData": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "LOCAL",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 7.8,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"integrityImpact": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "REQUIRED",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 1.8,
"impactScore": 5.9,
"source": "security-advisories@github.com",
"type": "Secondary"
},
{
"cvssData": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "HIGH",
"baseScore": 9.6,
"baseSeverity": "CRITICAL",
"confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
"integrityImpact": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "CHANGED",
"userInteraction": "REQUIRED",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H",
"version": "3.1"
},
"exploitabilityScore": 2.8,
"impactScore": 6.0,
"source": "nvd@nist.gov",
"type": "Primary"
}
],
"ssvcV203": [
{
"source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"ssvcData": {
"id": "CVE-2025-24028",
"options": [
{
"exploitation": "poc"
},
{
"automatable": "no"
},
{
"technicalImpact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2025-02-10T17:17:07.855594Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
}
}
]
},
"published": "2025-02-07T23:15:15.013",
"references": [
{
"source": "security-advisories@github.com",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/laurent22/joplin/commit/2a058ed8097c2502e152b26394dc1917897f5817"
},
{
"source": "security-advisories@github.com",
"tags": [
"Patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/laurent22/joplin/commit/9b505395918bc923f34fe6f3b960bb10e8cf234e"
},
{
"source": "security-advisories@github.com",
"tags": [
"Exploit",
"Vendor Advisory"
],
"url": "https://github.com/laurent22/joplin/security/advisories/GHSA-5w3c-wph9-hq92"
},
{
"source": "security-advisories@github.com",
"tags": [
"Product"
],
"url": "https://joplinapp.org/help/dev/spec/note_viewer_isolation"
},
{
"source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"tags": [
"Exploit",
"Vendor Advisory"
],
"url": "https://github.com/laurent22/joplin/security/advisories/GHSA-5w3c-wph9-hq92"
}
],
"sourceIdentifier": "security-advisories@github.com",
"vulnStatus": "Analyzed",
"weaknesses": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "CWE-79"
}
],
"source": "security-advisories@github.com",
"type": "Secondary"
}
]
}
Loading…
Loading…
Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.
Experimental. This forecast is provided for visualization only and may change without notice. Do not use it for operational decisions.
Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.
Sightings
| Author | Source | Type | Date | Other |
|---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline
Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC
How durations are calculated
Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.
Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.
Loading timeline…
Loading…
Loading…
The MITRE ATT&CK techniques below are AI-generated suggestions, inferred from the description of the
vulnerability by the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-classification-roberta-base
model, served locally by ML-Gateway.
They have not been verified by an analyst and are provided for guidance only.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
Loading…
Related by attack behaviour
Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.