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.
71637 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-8GR3-5J6F-25GP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-22 20:34 – Updated: 2026-09-22 20:34Summary
The @novu/js In-App Inbox renderer passes a notification's redirect.url to window.open() with no URL-scheme validation. The value originates from a notification's call-to-action and is delivered to the recipient verbatim.
An authenticated organization member (or any holder of the environment API key) creates a v1 in-app workflow whose step CTA stores cta.data = { url: "javascript:<payload>", target: "_self" }. The v1 message-template cta.data field is a Mongoose Mixed type, so the arbitrary target key is accepted and persisted. The server-side inbox mapper copies cta.data.url and cta.data.target into the notification's redirect object with no scheme check. Novu's v2 control schema validates redirect URLs against redirectUrlRegex (which rejects javascript:), proving the intended invariant; the v1 path and the client renderer do not enforce it.
When the recipient clicks the notification, the inbox calls window.open(url, "_self", "noopener noreferrer"). In Chromium browsers a javascript: URL opened with target="_self" executes in the current document origin (the default _blank is browser-blocked, so the attacker sets _self).
Result: a low-privilege content author runs arbitrary JavaScript in the browser of every recipient who clicks, in the origin that hosts the inbox (the customer application or the self-hosted Novu dashboard, neither of which sends a CSP).
Affected
novuhq/novu self-hosted and cloud, API <= v3.15.0; @novu/js <= 3.15.0 and @novu/react (Inbox component). Confirmed live-exploitable on v3.15.0 (Docker community compose, default config, default roles).
Condition: an in-app (Inbox) channel is in use, the standard product configuration.
Recipient must use a Chromium-based browser (Chrome, Edge); the javascript: execution does not occur where the browser blocks javascript: in window.open.
Root cause
packages/js/src/ui/context/InboxContext.tsx:108: window.open(url, target ?? DEFAULT_TARGET, DEFAULT_REFERRER) is reached for any URL not starting with /, with no scheme allowlist, so javascript: is passed through.
packages/js/src/ui/components/Notification/DefaultNotification.tsx:103: the notification click handler calls navigate(redirect.url, redirect.target), feeding the stored values into the sink.
apps/api/src/app/inbox/utils/notification-mapper.ts:85-89: maps cta.data.url and cta.data.target into redirect with no validation of either field.
libs/dal/src/repositories/message-template/message-template.schema.ts:41: data: Schema.Types.Mixed accepts the arbitrary target key (not present in the typed interface).
libs/application-generic/src/usecases/compile-in-app-template/compile-in-app-template.usecase.ts:35-36: the v1 render path handlebars-compiles cta.data.url and performs no scheme check.
libs/application-generic/src/schemas/control/in-app-control.schema.ts:24-27: the v2 control schema enforces url: z.string().regex(redirectUrlRegex) which rejects javascript:, the guard absent from the v1 path and the renderer.
Reproduction
novuhq/novu v3.15.0 Docker community compose, default config. Attacker holds an environment API key (or a member session); victim opens the inbox in Chromium.
- Create a v1 in-app workflow with a redirect CTA carrying a
javascript:URL andtarget=_self:
POST /v1/workflows Authorization: ApiKey <key>
{"name":"poc","notificationGroupId":"<ng>","active":true,
"steps":[{"template":{"type":"in_app","content":"click me",
"cta":{"type":"redirect","data":{
"url":"javascript:window.top.__X=document.domain;void 0","target":"_self"}}}}]}
- Trigger it to a subscriber, then read the feed with a subscriber token minted from the public application identifier (no secret):
POST /v1/inbox/session {"applicationIdentifier":"<appId>","subscriberId":"<sub>"}
GET /v1/inbox/notifications Authorization: Bearer <subscriber-jwt>
-> redirect: {"url":"javascript:window.top.__X=document.domain;void 0","target":"_self"}
- The subscriber clicks the notification in the
@novu/js/@novu/reactInbox.
Live-verified: the stored javascript: URL is returned verbatim by the inbox feed, and the exact shipped navigate() logic invoked from a real click runs window.open(url,"_self",...), executing the payload in the http://<dashboard>:4000 origin (no CSP); window.top.__X was set to the page origin. On the self-hosted dashboard the test inbox bell uses subscriberId = user.externalId (apps/dashboard/src/components/inbox-button.tsx:102), so a member targets another member's id and the executing payload reads localStorage['self-hosted-jwt'] (apps/dashboard/src/utils/self-hosted/jwt-manager.tsx:4), the dashboard session token.
Impact
- Stored XSS in the recipient's browser, cross-principal (content author to end-user subscriber), persistent, replicated to every recipient of the workflow.
- On the self-hosted dashboard origin (no CSP), theft of
localStorage['self-hosted-jwt']yields takeover of another member or admin account. - In a customer application embedding the inbox, session and token theft and authenticated actions in that origin.
- Triggered by the lowest privilege that can author a workflow, default config, one recipient click.
Credit
Jan Kahmen, turingpoint (jan@turingpoint.de)
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 3.17.0"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "@novu/js"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.18.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-75510"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-09-22T20:34:35Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-22T16:17:53Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\nThe `@novu/js` In-App Inbox renderer passes a notification\u0027s `redirect.url` to `window.open()` with no URL-scheme validation. The value originates from a notification\u0027s call-to-action and is delivered to the recipient verbatim.\n\nAn authenticated organization member (or any holder of the environment API key) creates a v1 in-app workflow whose step CTA stores `cta.data = { url: \"javascript:\u003cpayload\u003e\", target: \"_self\" }`. The v1 message-template `cta.data` field is a Mongoose `Mixed` type, so the arbitrary `target` key is accepted and persisted. The server-side inbox mapper copies `cta.data.url` and `cta.data.target` into the notification\u0027s `redirect` object with no scheme check. Novu\u0027s v2 control schema validates redirect URLs against `redirectUrlRegex` (which rejects `javascript:`), proving the intended invariant; the v1 path and the client renderer do not enforce it.\n\nWhen the recipient clicks the notification, the inbox calls `window.open(url, \"_self\", \"noopener noreferrer\")`. In Chromium browsers a `javascript:` URL opened with `target=\"_self\"` executes in the current document origin (the default `_blank` is browser-blocked, so the attacker sets `_self`).\n\nResult: a low-privilege content author runs arbitrary JavaScript in the browser of every recipient who clicks, in the origin that hosts the inbox (the customer application or the self-hosted Novu dashboard, neither of which sends a CSP).\n\n## Affected\n\nnovuhq/novu self-hosted and cloud, API \u003c= v3.15.0; `@novu/js` \u003c= 3.15.0 and `@novu/react` (Inbox component). Confirmed live-exploitable on v3.15.0 (Docker community compose, default config, default roles).\nCondition: an in-app (Inbox) channel is in use, the standard product configuration.\nRecipient must use a Chromium-based browser (Chrome, Edge); the `javascript:` execution does not occur where the browser blocks `javascript:` in `window.open`.\n\n## Root cause\n\npackages/js/src/ui/context/InboxContext.tsx:108: `window.open(url, target ?? DEFAULT_TARGET, DEFAULT_REFERRER)` is reached for any URL not starting with `/`, with no scheme allowlist, so `javascript:` is passed through.\npackages/js/src/ui/components/Notification/DefaultNotification.tsx:103: the notification click handler calls `navigate(redirect.url, redirect.target)`, feeding the stored values into the sink.\napps/api/src/app/inbox/utils/notification-mapper.ts:85-89: maps `cta.data.url` and `cta.data.target` into `redirect` with no validation of either field.\nlibs/dal/src/repositories/message-template/message-template.schema.ts:41: `data: Schema.Types.Mixed` accepts the arbitrary `target` key (not present in the typed interface).\nlibs/application-generic/src/usecases/compile-in-app-template/compile-in-app-template.usecase.ts:35-36: the v1 render path handlebars-compiles `cta.data.url` and performs no scheme check.\nlibs/application-generic/src/schemas/control/in-app-control.schema.ts:24-27: the v2 control schema enforces `url: z.string().regex(redirectUrlRegex)` which rejects `javascript:`, the guard absent from the v1 path and the renderer.\n\n## Reproduction\n\nnovuhq/novu v3.15.0 Docker community compose, default config. Attacker holds an environment API key (or a member session); victim opens the inbox in Chromium.\n\n1. Create a v1 in-app workflow with a redirect CTA carrying a `javascript:` URL and `target=_self`:\n```\nPOST /v1/workflows Authorization: ApiKey \u003ckey\u003e\n{\"name\":\"poc\",\"notificationGroupId\":\"\u003cng\u003e\",\"active\":true,\n \"steps\":[{\"template\":{\"type\":\"in_app\",\"content\":\"click me\",\n \"cta\":{\"type\":\"redirect\",\"data\":{\n \"url\":\"javascript:window.top.__X=document.domain;void 0\",\"target\":\"_self\"}}}}]}\n```\n2. Trigger it to a subscriber, then read the feed with a subscriber token minted from the public application identifier (no secret):\n```\nPOST /v1/inbox/session {\"applicationIdentifier\":\"\u003cappId\u003e\",\"subscriberId\":\"\u003csub\u003e\"}\nGET /v1/inbox/notifications Authorization: Bearer \u003csubscriber-jwt\u003e\n-\u003e redirect: {\"url\":\"javascript:window.top.__X=document.domain;void 0\",\"target\":\"_self\"}\n```\n3. The subscriber clicks the notification in the `@novu/js` / `@novu/react` Inbox.\n\nLive-verified: the stored `javascript:` URL is returned verbatim by the inbox feed, and the exact shipped `navigate()` logic invoked from a real click runs `window.open(url,\"_self\",...)`, executing the payload in the `http://\u003cdashboard\u003e:4000` origin (no CSP); `window.top.__X` was set to the page origin. On the self-hosted dashboard the test inbox bell uses `subscriberId = user.externalId` (apps/dashboard/src/components/inbox-button.tsx:102), so a member targets another member\u0027s id and the executing payload reads `localStorage[\u0027self-hosted-jwt\u0027]` (apps/dashboard/src/utils/self-hosted/jwt-manager.tsx:4), the dashboard session token.\n\n## Impact\n\n- Stored XSS in the recipient\u0027s browser, cross-principal (content author to end-user subscriber), persistent, replicated to every recipient of the workflow.\n- On the self-hosted dashboard origin (no CSP), theft of `localStorage[\u0027self-hosted-jwt\u0027]` yields takeover of another member or admin account.\n- In a customer application embedding the inbox, session and token theft and authenticated actions in that origin.\n- Triggered by the lowest privilege that can author a workflow, default config, one recipient click.\n\n## Credit\n\nJan Kahmen, [turingpoint](https://turingpoint.de) (jan@turingpoint.de)",
"id": "GHSA-8gr3-5j6f-25gp",
"modified": "2026-09-22T20:34:35Z",
"published": "2026-09-22T20:34:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/novuhq/novu/security/advisories/GHSA-8gr3-5j6f-25gp"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-75510"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/novuhq/novu/pull/11453"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/novuhq/novu/commit/f105f3d41a4405a75f803634d49f15a967524d8a"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/novuhq/novu"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/novuhq/novu/releases/tag/v3.18.0"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Novu: Stored XSS in In-App Inbox via notification redirect.url javascript: scheme"
}
GHSA-8GR4-JGMH-5G8W
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 22:28 – Updated: 2024-11-19 15:31In “Calibre-web” application, v0.6.0 to v0.6.12, are vulnerable to Stored XSS in “Metadata”. An attacker that has access to edit the metadata information, can inject JavaScript payload in the description field. When a victim tries to open the file, XSS will be triggered.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-25964"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-10-04T15:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In \u201cCalibre-web\u201d application, v0.6.0 to v0.6.12, are vulnerable to Stored XSS in \u201cMetadata\u201d. An attacker that has access to edit the metadata information, can inject JavaScript payload in the description field. When a victim tries to open the file, XSS will be triggered.",
"id": "GHSA-8gr4-jgmh-5g8w",
"modified": "2024-11-19T15:31:50Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T22:28:27Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-25964"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/janeczku/calibre-web/commit/32e27712f0f71fdec646add20cd78b4ce75acfce"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.whitesourcesoftware.com/vulnerability-database/CVE-2021-25964"
}
],
"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:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-8GRJ-8RRM-8934
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-02-10 06:30 – Updated: 2026-02-10 06:30The BSP applications allow an unauthenticated user to manipulate user-controlled URL parameters that are not sufficiently validated. This could result in unvalidated redirection to attacker-controlled websites, leading to a low impact on confidentiality and integrity, and no impact on the availability of the application.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-0505"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-02-10T04:16:02Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The BSP applications allow an unauthenticated user to manipulate user-controlled URL parameters that are not sufficiently validated. This could result in unvalidated redirection to attacker-controlled websites, leading to a low impact on confidentiality and integrity, and no impact on the availability of the application.",
"id": "GHSA-8grj-8rrm-8934",
"modified": "2026-02-10T06:30:38Z",
"published": "2026-02-10T06:30:38Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-0505"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://me.sap.com/notes/3678417"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://url.sap/sapsecuritypatchday"
}
],
"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-8GRQ-4HC4-MRPV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-04 15:30 – Updated: 2026-04-04 15:30MyBB Last User's Threads in Profile Plugin 1.2 contains a persistent cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows attackers to inject malicious scripts by crafting thread subjects with script tags. Attackers can create threads with script payloads in the subject field that execute when users visit the attacker's profile page.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-25250"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-04T14:16:21Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "MyBB Last User\u0027s Threads in Profile Plugin 1.2 contains a persistent cross-site scripting vulnerability that allows attackers to inject malicious scripts by crafting thread subjects with script tags. Attackers can create threads with script payloads in the subject field that execute when users visit the attacker\u0027s profile page.",
"id": "GHSA-8grq-4hc4-mrpv",
"modified": "2026-04-04T15:30:20Z",
"published": "2026-04-04T15:30:20Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-25250"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://community.mybb.com/mods.php?action=view\u0026pid=910"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/44339"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/mybb-last-user-s-threads-in-profile-plugin-persistent-xss"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
]
}
GHSA-8GRV-JRVM-44HM
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-04-01 00:00 – Updated: 2022-04-06 00:01Online Banking System Protect v1.0 was discovered to contain multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities via parameters on user profile, system_info and accounts management.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-26644"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-03-30T23:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Online Banking System Protect v1.0 was discovered to contain multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities via parameters on user profile, system_info and accounts management.",
"id": "GHSA-8grv-jrvm-44hm",
"modified": "2022-04-06T00:01:42Z",
"published": "2022-04-01T00:00:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-26644"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/erik-451/CVE/tree/main/CVE-2022-26644"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://online.com"
}
],
"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-8GRW-RC3H-C4W2
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 02:35 – Updated: 2022-05-14 02:35Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the Report Viewer Control in Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 SP1 and Report Viewer 2005 SP1 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a parameter in a data source, aka "Report Viewer Controls XSS Vulnerability."
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2011-1976"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2011-08-10T21:55:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the Report Viewer Control in Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 SP1 and Report Viewer 2005 SP1 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a parameter in a data source, aka \"Report Viewer Controls XSS Vulnerability.\"",
"id": "GHSA-8grw-rc3h-c4w2",
"modified": "2022-05-14T02:35:41Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T02:35:41Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2011-1976"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/security-updates/securitybulletins/2011/ms11-067"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://h20566.www2.hpe.com/portal/site/hpsc/public/kb/docDisplay?docId=emr_na-c04945270"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://oval.cisecurity.org/repository/search/definition/oval%3Aorg.mitre.oval%3Adef%3A12773"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://marc.info/?l=bugtraq\u0026m=145326307707460\u0026w=2"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/49033"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/techalerts/TA11-221A.html"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-8GRX-RJM9-F6QQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:45 – Updated: 2022-05-24 17:45An issue was discovered in PunBB before 1.4.6. An XSS vulnerability in the [email] BBcode tag allows (with authentication) injecting arbitrary JavaScript into any forum message.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-28968"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-03-22T16:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "An issue was discovered in PunBB before 1.4.6. An XSS vulnerability in the [email] BBcode tag allows (with authentication) injecting arbitrary JavaScript into any forum message.",
"id": "GHSA-8grx-rjm9-f6qq",
"modified": "2022-05-24T17:45:03Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:45:03Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-28968"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://punbb.informer.com"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-8GV2-V57R-F43P
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 03:47 – Updated: 2022-05-14 03:47The review dashboard resource in Atlassian Crucible from version 4.1.0 before version 4.4.1 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary HTML or JavaScript via a cross site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the review filter title parameter.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-9507"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-08-24T17:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The review dashboard resource in Atlassian Crucible from version 4.1.0 before version 4.4.1 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary HTML or JavaScript via a cross site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the review filter title parameter.",
"id": "GHSA-8gv2-v57r-f43p",
"modified": "2022-05-14T03:47:42Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T03:47:42Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-9507"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/CRUC-8043"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-8GV5-8QG3-4CW8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 02:49 – Updated: 2022-05-14 02:49Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in F5 BIG-IP Application Security Manager (ASM) before 11.6 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the Response Body field when creating a new user account.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2015-1050"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2015-01-15T15:59:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in F5 BIG-IP Application Security Manager (ASM) before 11.6 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the Response Body field when creating a new user account.",
"id": "GHSA-8gv5-8qg3-4cw8",
"modified": "2022-05-14T02:49:51Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T02:49:51Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2015-1050"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/99907"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/129911/F5-BIG-IP-Application-Security-Manager-ASM-XSS.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2015/Jan/43"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/534459/100/0/threaded"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1031551"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-8GVF-F484-H344
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-06-22 00:30 – Updated: 2024-07-03 18:46In Kostal PIKO 1.5-1 MP plus HMI OEM p 1.0.1, the web application for the Solar Panel is vulnerable to a Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) attack on /file.bootloader.upload.html. The application fails to sanitize the parameter filename, in a POST request to /file.bootloader.upload.html for a system update, thus allowing one to inject HTML and/or JavaScript on the page that will then be processed and stored by the application. Any subsequent requests to pages that retrieve the malicious content will automatically exploit the vulnerability on the victim's browser. This also happens because the tag is loaded in the function innerHTML in the page HTML.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-42974"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-06-21T22:15:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "In Kostal PIKO 1.5-1 MP plus HMI OEM p 1.0.1, the web application for the Solar Panel is vulnerable to a Stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) attack on /file.bootloader.upload.html. The application fails to sanitize the parameter filename, in a POST request to /file.bootloader.upload.html for a system update, thus allowing one to inject HTML and/or JavaScript on the page that will then be processed and stored by the application. Any subsequent requests to pages that retrieve the malicious content will automatically exploit the vulnerability on the victim\u0027s browser. This also happens because the tag is loaded in the function innerHTML in the page HTML.",
"id": "GHSA-8gvf-f484-h344",
"modified": "2024-07-03T18:46:21Z",
"published": "2024-06-22T00:30:56Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-42974"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://medium.com/%40daviddepaulasantos/how-we-got-a-cve-for-a-dom-based-stored-xss-on-a-solar-panel-917b9d7b2545"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
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.