Focus on liquidlabs vulnerabilities and metrics.
Last updated: 26 Nov 2025, 23:25 UTC
This page consolidates all known Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) associated with liquidlabs. We track both calendar-based metrics (using fixed periods) and rolling metrics (using gliding windows) to give you a comprehensive view of security trends and risk evolution. Use these insights to assess risk and plan your patching strategy.
For a broader perspective on cybersecurity threats, explore the comprehensive list of CVEs by vendor and product. Stay updated on critical vulnerabilities affecting major software and hardware providers.
Total liquidlabs CVEs: 1
Earliest CVE date: 22 Sep 2025, 20:15 UTC
Latest CVE date: 22 Sep 2025, 20:15 UTC
Latest CVE reference: CVE-2025-57203
30-day Count (Rolling): 0
365-day Count (Rolling): 1
Calendar-based Variation
Calendar-based Variation compares a fixed calendar period (e.g., this month versus the same month last year), while Rolling Growth Rate uses a continuous window (e.g., last 30 days versus the previous 30 days) to capture trends independent of calendar boundaries.
Month Variation (Calendar): 0%
Year Variation (Calendar): 0%
Month Growth Rate (30-day Rolling): 0.0%
Year Growth Rate (365-day Rolling): 0.0%
Average CVSS: 0.0
Max CVSS: 0
Critical CVEs (≥9): 0
| Range | Count |
|---|---|
| 0.0-3.9 | 1 |
| 4.0-6.9 | 0 |
| 7.0-8.9 | 0 |
| 9.0-10.0 | 0 |
These are the five CVEs with the highest CVSS scores for liquidlabs, sorted by severity first and recency.
MagicProject AI version 9.1 is affected by a Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability within the chatbot generation feature available to authenticated admin users. The vulnerability resides in the prompt parameter submitted to the /dashboard/user/generator/generate-stream endpoint via a multipart/form-data POST request. Due to insufficient input sanitization, attackers can inject HTML-based JavaScript payloads. This payload is stored and rendered unsanitized in subsequent views, leading to execution in other users' browsers when they access affected content. This issue allows an authenticated attacker to execute arbitrary JavaScript in the context of another user, potentially leading to session hijacking, privilege escalation, data exfiltration, or administrative account takeover. The application does not implement a Content Security Policy (CSP) or adequate input filtering to prevent such attacks. A fix should include proper sanitization, output encoding, and strong CSP enforcement to mitigate exploitation.