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.
71126 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-C99X-27J7-3PFR
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-02 03:32 – Updated: 2022-05-02 03:32Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in transLucid 1.75 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (a) NodeID and (b) action parameters to the default URI, and the (c) NodeID parameter to the default URI for the admin section; and allow remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (d) Title (aka page name) and (e) Url fields in a (1) new or (2) modified page.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2009-2145"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2009-06-22T14:30:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in transLucid 1.75 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (a) NodeID and (b) action parameters to the default URI, and the (c) NodeID parameter to the default URI for the admin section; and allow remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the (d) Title (aka page name) and (e) Url fields in a (1) new or (2) modified page.",
"id": "GHSA-c99x-27j7-3pfr",
"modified": "2022-05-02T03:32:17Z",
"published": "2022-05-02T03:32:17Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2009-2145"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/8943"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://forum.intern0t.net/intern0t-advisories/1122-intern0t-translucid-1-75-multiple-vulnerabilities.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/35389"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-C9C3-H47G-8R8J
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-24 06:36 – Updated: 2025-01-24 06:36The Listamester plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the plugin's 'listamester' shortcode in all versions up to, and including, 2.3.4 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-2024-13659"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-24T06:15:26Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Listamester plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the plugin\u0027s \u0027listamester\u0027 shortcode in all versions up to, and including, 2.3.4 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-c9c3-h47g-8r8j",
"modified": "2025-01-24T06:36:55Z",
"published": "2025-01-24T06:36:55Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-13659"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/listamester/trunk/includes/class-listamester.php#L105"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail=\u0026reponame=\u0026old=3225538%40listamester\u0026new=3225538%40listamester\u0026sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail="
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/68b4358d-d4b4-415b-a19f-e58b155ceac9?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-C9C4-XMC2-5H6X
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-01 18:31 – Updated: 2026-07-09 21:31Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (XSS or 'Cross-site Scripting') vulnerability in Wikimedia Foundation MediaWiki.
This vulnerability is associated with program files includes/Language/Language.Php, includes/Logging/BlockLogFormatter.Php, includes/Logging/LogFormatter.Php, includes/Logging/PatrolLogFormatter.Php, includes/Logging/RenameuserLogFormatter.Php, includes/Logging/TagLogFormatter.Php, includes/Specials/SpecialVersion.Php.
This issue affects MediaWiki: from * before 1.46.0, 1.45.4, 1.44.6, 1.43.9.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-58037"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-07-01T16:16:51Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (XSS or \u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027) vulnerability in Wikimedia Foundation MediaWiki.\n\n This vulnerability is associated with program files includes/Language/Language.Php, includes/Logging/BlockLogFormatter.Php, includes/Logging/LogFormatter.Php, includes/Logging/PatrolLogFormatter.Php, includes/Logging/RenameuserLogFormatter.Php, includes/Logging/TagLogFormatter.Php, includes/Specials/SpecialVersion.Php.\n\n\n\nThis issue affects MediaWiki: from * before 1.46.0, 1.45.4, 1.44.6, 1.43.9.",
"id": "GHSA-c9c4-xmc2-5h6x",
"modified": "2026-07-09T21:31:13Z",
"published": "2026-07-01T18:31:50Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-58037"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T422995"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/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-C9C8-7G4Q-97G7
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-12-10 21:31 – Updated: 2025-12-10 21:31Adobe Experience Manager versions 6.5.23 and earlier are affected by a stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability that could be abused by a low privileged attacker to inject malicious scripts into vulnerable form fields. Malicious JavaScript may be executed in a victim’s browser when they browse to the page containing the vulnerable field.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-64611"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-12-10T19:16:25Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Adobe Experience Manager versions 6.5.23 and earlier are affected by a stored Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability that could be abused by a low privileged attacker to inject malicious scripts into vulnerable form fields. Malicious JavaScript may be executed in a victim\u2019s browser when they browse to the page containing the vulnerable field.",
"id": "GHSA-c9c8-7g4q-97g7",
"modified": "2025-12-10T21:31:35Z",
"published": "2025-12-10T21:31:35Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-64611"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/experience-manager/apsb25-115.html"
}
],
"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-C9CG-VJXW-FW7C
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-09-11 09:31 – Updated: 2026-04-08 21:33The Elements Plus! plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the plugin's Image Comparison, HotSpot Plus, and Google Maps widgets in all versions up to, and including, 2.16.4 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-2025-8689"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-11T08:15:35Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Elements Plus! plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the plugin\u0027s Image Comparison, HotSpot Plus, and Google Maps widgets in all versions up to, and including, 2.16.4 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-c9cg-vjxw-fw7c",
"modified": "2026-04-08T21:33:06Z",
"published": "2025-09-11T09:31:44Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-8689"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset?sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail=\u0026reponame=\u0026old=3361885%40elements-plus\u0026new=3361885%40elements-plus\u0026sfp_email=\u0026sfph_mail="
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wordpress.org/plugins/elements-plus/#developers"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/bdebb4a6-1bf8-4a61-b690-cf933215216a?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-C9CP-98M8-82J9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 19:14 – Updated: 2022-08-26 00:03The TechRadar app 1.1 for Confluence Server allows XSS via the Title field of a Radar.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-37412"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2021-09-15T17:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The TechRadar app 1.1 for Confluence Server allows XSS via the Title field of a Radar.",
"id": "GHSA-c9cp-98m8-82j9",
"modified": "2022-08-26T00:03:31Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T19:14:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-37412"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.syss.de/fileadmin/dokumente/Publikationen/Advisories/SYSS-2021-040.txt"
}
],
"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-C9CQ-XX3F-CXP3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-06-18 18:30 – Updated: 2025-06-18 18:30IBM Sterling B2B Integrator and IBM Sterling File Gateway 6.0.0.0 through 6.1.2.6 and 6.2.0.0 through 6.2.0.4 is vulnerable to cross-site scripting. This vulnerability allows an authenticated user to embed arbitrary JavaScript code in the Web UI thus altering the intended functionality potentially leading to credentials disclosure within a trusted session.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-54183"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-06-18T16:15:26Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "IBM Sterling B2B Integrator and IBM Sterling File Gateway 6.0.0.0 through 6.1.2.6 and 6.2.0.0 through 6.2.0.4 is vulnerable to cross-site scripting. This vulnerability allows an authenticated user to embed arbitrary JavaScript code in the Web UI thus altering the intended functionality potentially leading to credentials disclosure within a trusted session.",
"id": "GHSA-c9cq-xx3f-cxp3",
"modified": "2025-06-18T18:30:32Z",
"published": "2025-06-18T18:30:32Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-54183"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/node/7237060"
}
],
"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-C9CV-MQ2M-PPP3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-06-16 13:47 – Updated: 2026-09-18 20:42Summary
Three weaknesses in Nuxt's client-navigation URL handling, all reachable
from documented public APIs (navigateTo and reloadNuxtApp):
-
(CVE-2026-56326) SSR open redirect in
navigateTovia path-normalisation bypass.navigateTodecided whether a target was external by inspecting the raw input withhasProtocol(..., { acceptRelative: true }). Inputs such as/..//evil.com,/.//evil.com,/%2e%2e//evil.com, or/app/..//evil.comslipped past that check because they start with/, but WHATWG URL parsing then normalised them to the protocol-relative pathname//evil.com. The normalised value was written to theLocationresponse header and into the<meta http-equiv="refresh">body of the SSR redirect page, so a victim's browser would resolve the redirect cross-origin to the attacker's host. -
(CVE-2026-56698) Client-side script execution via
navigateTo({ open: ... }). The client-side early-open handler calledwindow.open(toPath, ...)without applying theisScriptProtocolcheck that gates the normalnavigateTopath. A target ofjavascript:...(or another script-capable scheme) passed tonavigateTo(url, { open: { ... } })therefore executed in the application's origin instead of being rejected. -
(CVE-2026-56697) Open redirect in
reloadNuxtAppvia protocol-relative bypass.reloadNuxtApp({ path })rejects script-capable protocols by parsing the path withnew URL(path, window.location.href)and checking the resolvedprotocolagainstisScriptProtocol. Protocol-relative paths such as//evil.comresolve to the current page's protocol (https:), which passes that check; the value is then assigned towindow.location.href, which the browser treats as a cross-origin redirect. This is the same protocol-relative bypass family as (1), in a different sink.
Impact
For (1), the practical risk is phishing or OAuth-code theft against any
Nuxt app that forwards user-controlled input (for example a ?next=
query parameter on a login route) into navigateTo on the server. The
framework documents that navigateTo blocks external hosts unless
external: true is passed, so maintainers commonly rely on it as the
safe path for post-login redirects.
For (2), any app that passes a user-controlled URL into
navigateTo(url, { open: { ... } }) was vulnerable to reflected XSS in
the application's first-party origin.
For (3), any app that forwards user-controlled input into
reloadNuxtApp({ path }) could be redirected cross-origin for phishing
or OAuth-code theft, even on releases that already shipped the
isScriptProtocol guard added by #35115.
Patches
Fixed in nuxt@4.4.7 and backported to nuxt@3.21.7. The three sinks
are addressed by:
- Path-normalisation bypass in
navigateTo: - 4.x: commit
2cce6fb0 - 3.x: commit
1f2dd5e7 navigateTo({ open })script-protocol guard:- 4.x: #35206 (commit
3394716d) - 3.x: commit
62fc32ed - Protocol-relative bypass in
reloadNuxtApp: - 4.x: commit
e447a793 - 3.x: commit
6497d99d
Workarounds
- For (1): validate redirect targets before passing them to
navigateTo, for example reject any input wherenew URL(target, 'http://localhost').pathnamestarts with//, or only accept a known allow-list of paths. - For (2): reject any user-controlled URL whose protocol is not in an
allow-list (typically just
http:andhttps:) before passing it tonavigateTo({ open: ... }). - For (3): same shape as (1). Reject paths starting with
//(or wherenew URL(path, window.location.href).host !== window.location.host) before passing toreloadNuxtApp({ path }).
References
- CWE-601: URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect')
- CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation ('Cross-site Scripting')
Credits
Reported by Anthropic / Claude as ANT-2026-S08HN6DH through Anthropic's
coordinated vulnerability disclosure programme.
The reloadNuxtApp protocol-relative bypass (sink 3) was independently
reported by @alcls01111 via GitHub's
coordinated disclosure flow (GHSA-w7fp-2cfv-4837), closed as a
duplicate of this advisory.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "nuxt"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "4.0.0"
},
{
"fixed": "4.4.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
},
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "nuxt"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "3.5.0"
},
{
"fixed": "3.21.7"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-56326"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-601",
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-06-16T13:47:52Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-06-22T22:16:52Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nThree weaknesses in Nuxt\u0027s client-navigation URL handling, all reachable\nfrom documented public APIs (`navigateTo` and `reloadNuxtApp`):\n\n1. **(CVE-2026-56326) SSR open redirect in `navigateTo` via path-normalisation bypass.** \n `navigateTo` decided whether a target was external by inspecting the raw\n input with `hasProtocol(..., { acceptRelative: true })`. Inputs such as\n `/..//evil.com`, `/.//evil.com`, `/%2e%2e//evil.com`, or\n `/app/..//evil.com` slipped past that check because they start with\n `/`, but WHATWG URL parsing then normalised them to the\n protocol-relative pathname `//evil.com`. The normalised value was\n written to the `Location` response header and into the\n `\u003cmeta http-equiv=\"refresh\"\u003e` body of the SSR redirect page, so a\n victim\u0027s browser would resolve the redirect cross-origin to the\n attacker\u0027s host.\n\n2. **(CVE-2026-56698) Client-side script execution via `navigateTo({ open: ... })`.** The\n client-side early-open handler called `window.open(toPath, ...)` without\n applying the `isScriptProtocol` check that gates the normal `navigateTo`\n path. A target of `javascript:...` (or another script-capable scheme)\n passed to `navigateTo(url, { open: { ... } })` therefore executed in the\n application\u0027s origin instead of being rejected.\n\n3. **(CVE-2026-56697) Open redirect in `reloadNuxtApp` via protocol-relative bypass.**\n `reloadNuxtApp({ path })` rejects script-capable protocols by parsing\n the path with `new URL(path, window.location.href)` and checking the\n resolved `protocol` against `isScriptProtocol`. Protocol-relative paths\n such as `//evil.com` resolve to the current page\u0027s protocol (`https:`),\n which passes that check; the value is then assigned to\n `window.location.href`, which the browser treats as a cross-origin\n redirect. This is the same protocol-relative bypass family as (1), in\n a different sink.\n\n### Impact\n\nFor (1), the practical risk is phishing or OAuth-code theft against any\nNuxt app that forwards user-controlled input (for example a `?next=`\nquery parameter on a login route) into `navigateTo` on the server. The\nframework documents that `navigateTo` blocks external hosts unless\n`external: true` is passed, so maintainers commonly rely on it as the\nsafe path for post-login redirects.\n\nFor (2), any app that passes a user-controlled URL into\n`navigateTo(url, { open: { ... } })` was vulnerable to reflected XSS in\nthe application\u0027s first-party origin.\n\nFor (3), any app that forwards user-controlled input into\n`reloadNuxtApp({ path })` could be redirected cross-origin for phishing\nor OAuth-code theft, even on releases that already shipped the\n`isScriptProtocol` guard added by [#35115](https://github.com/nuxt/nuxt/pull/35115).\n\n### Patches\n\nFixed in `nuxt@4.4.7` and backported to `nuxt@3.21.7`. The three sinks\nare addressed by:\n\n- Path-normalisation bypass in `navigateTo`:\n - 4.x: commit [`2cce6fb0`](https://github.com/nuxt/nuxt/commit/2cce6fb02e621196d56df92e05594e07469b5a6d)\n - 3.x: commit [`1f2dd5e7`](https://github.com/nuxt/nuxt/commit/1f2dd5e78c77576437138e97671965573c232835)\n- `navigateTo({ open })` script-protocol guard:\n - 4.x: [#35206](https://github.com/nuxt/nuxt/pull/35206) (commit [`3394716d`](https://github.com/nuxt/nuxt/commit/3394716d4a913cba904b028df5338f2aead50032))\n - 3.x: commit [`62fc32ed`](https://github.com/nuxt/nuxt/commit/62fc32eddf648b00a3890141e0235d2a222b024d)\n- Protocol-relative bypass in `reloadNuxtApp`:\n - 4.x: commit [`e447a793`](https://github.com/nuxt/nuxt/commit/e447a793c47766834f7497f8412a76cd56fd8ee1)\n - 3.x: commit [`6497d99d`](https://github.com/nuxt/nuxt/commit/6497d99dd106254abd089f6a263d7773869a343b)\n\n### Workarounds\n\n- For (1): validate redirect targets before passing them to `navigateTo`,\n for example reject any input where\n `new URL(target, \u0027http://localhost\u0027).pathname` starts with `//`, or\n only accept a known allow-list of paths.\n- For (2): reject any user-controlled URL whose protocol is not in an\n allow-list (typically just `http:` and `https:`) before passing it to\n `navigateTo({ open: ... })`.\n- For (3): same shape as (1). Reject paths starting with `//` (or where\n `new URL(path, window.location.href).host !== window.location.host`)\n before passing to `reloadNuxtApp({ path })`.\n\n### References\n\n- CWE-601: URL Redirection to Untrusted Site (\u0027Open Redirect\u0027)\n- CWE-79: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation (\u0027Cross-site Scripting\u0027)\n\n### Credits\n\nReported by Anthropic / Claude as `ANT-2026-S08HN6DH` through Anthropic\u0027s\ncoordinated vulnerability disclosure programme.\n\nThe `reloadNuxtApp` protocol-relative bypass (sink 3) was independently\nreported by [@alcls01111](https://github.com/alcls01111) via GitHub\u0027s\ncoordinated disclosure flow (`GHSA-w7fp-2cfv-4837`), closed as a\nduplicate of this advisory.",
"id": "GHSA-c9cv-mq2m-ppp3",
"modified": "2026-09-18T20:42:57Z",
"published": "2026-06-16T13:47:52Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nuxt/nuxt/security/advisories/GHSA-c9cv-mq2m-ppp3"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-56326"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-56697"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-56698"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nuxt/nuxt/pull/35115"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nuxt/nuxt/pull/35206"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nuxt/nuxt/commit/1f2dd5e78c77576437138e97671965573c232835"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nuxt/nuxt/commit/2cce6fb02e621196d56df92e05594e07469b5a6d"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nuxt/nuxt/commit/3394716d4a913cba904b028df5338f2aead50032"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nuxt/nuxt/commit/62fc32eddf648b00a3890141e0235d2a222b024d"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nuxt/nuxt/commit/6497d99dd106254abd089f6a263d7773869a343b"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/nuxt/nuxt/commit/e447a793c47766834f7497f8412a76cd56fd8ee1"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/nuxt/nuxt"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/nuxt-cross-site-scripting-via-navigateto-open-option"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/nuxt-open-redirect-via-protocol-relative-paths-in-reloadnuxtapp"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/nuxt-server-side-open-redirect-via-path-normalization-bypass-in-navigateto"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:L/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:L/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "Nuxt: URL-handling weaknesses in `navigateTo` and `reloadNuxtApp`: SSR open redirect, client-side script execution via the `open` option, and protocol-relative bypass in `reloadNuxtApp`"
}
GHSA-C9F9-P5F3-29F5
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-24 17:11 – Updated: 2022-09-13 00:00Reflected XSS in admin/edit-article.php in Chadha PHPKB Standard Multi-Language 9 allows attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the GET parameter p.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-10464"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2020-03-12T14:15:00Z",
"severity": "LOW"
},
"details": "Reflected XSS in admin/edit-article.php in Chadha PHPKB Standard Multi-Language 9 allows attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the GET parameter p.",
"id": "GHSA-c9f9-p5f3-29f5",
"modified": "2022-09-13T00:00:35Z",
"published": "2022-05-24T17:11:15Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-10464"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://antoniocannito.it/phpkb2#reflected-cross-site-scripting-when-editing-an-article-cve-2020-10464"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://antoniocannito.it/?p=342#xss3"
}
],
"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:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-C9FQ-7PH4-V5CV
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-01-30 00:31 – Updated: 2025-01-30 00:31A vulnerability was found in needyamin Library Card System 1.0. It has been declared as problematic. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file signup.php of the component Registration Page. The manipulation of the argument firstname/lastname/email/borrow/user_address leads to cross site scripting. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. Other parameters might be affected as well.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-0844"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-01-30T00:15:41Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability was found in needyamin Library Card System 1.0. It has been declared as problematic. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file signup.php of the component Registration Page. The manipulation of the argument firstname/lastname/email/borrow/user_address leads to cross site scripting. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. Other parameters might be affected as well.",
"id": "GHSA-c9fq-7ph4-v5cv",
"modified": "2025-01-30T00:31:05Z",
"published": "2025-01-30T00:31:05Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-0844"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?ctiid.294001"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?id.294001"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://vuldb.com/?submit.485558"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.websecurityinsights.my.id/2025/01/library-card-system-stored-cross-site.html?m=1"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/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"
}
]
}
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.