Incomplete customer records via inconsistent required-field validation
Published Jan 3, 2024 · Updated Jun 17, 2025
Improper input validation in Froxlor before 2.1.2 allows remote attackers to save customer records without a name, surname, or company. The Customers::update path derives company-field requiredness from the stored record instead of the submitted values, while browser validation checks untrimmed string lengths. An unauthenticated crafted submission with omitted or whitespace-only identity fields bypasses both layers and persists an incomplete customer identity record.
Summary
What happened
Improper input validation in Froxlor before 2.1.2 allows remote attackers to save customer records without a name, surname, or company. The Customers::update path derives company-field requiredness from the stored record instead of the submitted values, while browser validation checks untrimmed string lengths. An unauthenticated crafted submission with omitted or whitespace-only identity fields bypasses both layers and persists an incomplete customer identity record.
The record
- CVE
- CVE-2023-50256
- Published
- Jan 3, 2024
- Updated
- Jun 17, 2025
- Vendor
- Froxlor
- Product
- Froxlor
- Classifications
- CWE-20
- Attack vector
- network
- Privileges
- unauthenticated
Timeline
How it unfolded
- Jan 3, 2024CVE publishedPublication date reported by the CVE source.
- Jun 17, 2025Record updatedLatest update available in the CVE record.
Exploitability
Present is not the same as exploitable
Compare your product and version with the public record. A matching version still requires validation against your environment.
Is a vulnerable build present?
Compare these published version ranges with your installed build and any vendor patches.
- Affected versionversion=< 2.1.2
What conditions does exploitation require?
What is affected?
Published CVSS scores
CVSS describes severity. EPSS estimates exploitation probability.
Attacks
What attackers are doing with it
Daily unique IPs observed by Shadowserver honeypots for known exploited vulnerabilities (KEVs). Missing observations do not establish an absence of attacks.
Weakness, pattern, technique
Public exploit references
- Customer required-field bypass video demonstrationproof of concept · demonstrated
Labels summarize the accepted research assessment. They do not indicate a test against your environment.
Technologies
Your stack
See the directory against your own environment.
Your stack
Check the software in your environment
Book a demo to see how Hinoki identifies affected software and validates exploitability in your environment.
Book a demo