RansomLook contains a stored cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the cryptocurrency wallet detail view. Cryptocurrency addresses and blockchain names originating from external sources, including the public crowd-sourced ransomwhe.re feed, were stored without sufficient validation and later embedded directly into an inline JavaScript onclick handler.
Although Jinja HTML autoescaping was applied, it does not provide adequate protection when untrusted data is inserted into a JavaScript string inside an HTML attribute. HTML entities such as ' are decoded by the browser's HTML parser before the resulting attribute is interpreted as JavaScript. Consequently, a specially crafted cryptocurrency address containing quote characters and JavaScript syntax could escape the intended string literal and execute arbitrary JavaScript when a user clicked the affected wallet's CSV export button.
Because cryptocurrency information imported from an untrusted upstream could reach the vulnerable rendering path, exploitation may not require an authenticated RansomLook account if an attacker can introduce a malicious wallet record into a consumed external data source. Successful exploitation could allow attacker-controlled JavaScript to execute in the security context of the RansomLook web application, potentially exposing information accessible to the victim or performing actions with the victim's privileges.
The patch mitigates the issue by validating cryptocurrency addresses and blockchain identifiers before storage, restricting them to a safe character set, and replacing the inline JavaScript handler with data-* attributes and an external event listener so wallet values are treated strictly as data rather than executable JavaScript.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Attend at high (mission-essential systems).
An upstream fix is merged but not yet in a tagged release. Restrict network exposure of the affected system or apply the vendor's mitigation within your standard update timelines at low or medium mission impact and sooner than that at high until it ships, then apply the release.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (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; 60 days if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable yes (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). 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