GHSA-384w-wffr-x63q is a medium-severity (CVSS 6.1) Cross-site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in pterodactyl/panel. A fix is available for pterodactyl/panel — see the affected versions and patch details below.
Pterodactyl panel's admin area vulnerable to Cross-site Scripting
Exploitation Status
No confirmed exploitation observed yet
- CISA’s own triage has not observed active exploitation or public proof-of-concept code for this CVE as of its last assessment.
Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-384w-wffr-x63q.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.
How urgent is this, really
GHSA-384w-wffr-x63q plotted by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). The shaded corner — EPSS 50%+ and CVSS 7.0+ — is where this CVE doesn't sit, though severity or exploitability alone can still warrant action.
Where this sits among everything scored
Of 378,156 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Real counts from FIRST.org, not a sample — log-scaled since the landscape is heavily right-skewed.
Real-World Exposure
pterodactyl/panelReal-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects Packagist packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.
Description
Impact
Importing a malicious egg or gaining access to wings instance could lead to XSS on the panel, which could be used to gain an administrator account on the panel. Specifically, the following things are impacted:
- Egg Docker images
- Egg variables:
- Name
- Environment variable
- Default value
- Description
- Validation rules
Additionally, certain fields would reflect malicious input, but it would require the user knowingly entering such input to have an impact.
To iterate, this would require an administrator to perform actions and can't be triggered by a normal panel user.
Workarounds
No workaround is available other than updating to the latest version of the panel.
Patches
All of the following commits are required to resolve this security issue:
https://github.com/pterodactyl/panel/commit/1172d71d31561c4e465dabdf6b838e64de48ad16 https://github.com/pterodactyl/panel/commit/f671046947e4695b5e1c647df79305c1cefdf817 https://github.com/pterodactyl/panel/commit/0dad4c5a488661f9adc27dd311542516d9bfa0f2
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐘Packagist | pterodactyl/panel | all versions | 1.11.6composer require pterodactyl/panel:^1.11.6 |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for pterodactyl/panel, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update pterodactyl/panel to 1.11.6 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-384w-wffr-x63q is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.
How O3 protects you
O3 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like GHSA-384w-wffr-x63q can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.
Tailored to GHSA-384w-wffr-x63q. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is GHSA-384w-wffr-x63q in your dependencies?
O3 Security finds GHSA-384w-wffr-x63q across Packagist dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.