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.
70459 vulnerabilities reference this CWE, most recent first.
GHSA-CRR7-P99C-F6VQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-11-21 12:30 – Updated: 2023-11-29 12:30Stored Cross-site Scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities affecting 3DSwym in 3DSwymer from Release 3DEXPERIENCE R2022x through Release 3DEXPERIENCE R2023x allow an attacker to execute arbitrary script code.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-5598"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-11-21T10:15:07Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Stored Cross-site Scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities\u00c2\u00a0affecting 3DSwym in 3DSwymer from Release 3DEXPERIENCE R2022x through Release 3DEXPERIENCE R2023x allow an attacker to execute arbitrary script code.",
"id": "GHSA-crr7-p99c-f6vq",
"modified": "2023-11-29T12:30:15Z",
"published": "2023-11-21T12:30:26Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-5598"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.3ds.com/vulnerability/advisories"
}
],
"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-CRRQ-MJW6-39QP
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-12 03:30 – Updated: 2026-09-12 03:30QloApps through 1.7.0 renders back-office list filter POST parameters into HTML input value attributes without escaping them in the list helper template. Attackers can induce authenticated users to submit crafted POST requests with malicious payloads to list controllers, executing arbitrary JavaScript in the victim's session to read administrative data and perform actions.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-89268"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2026-09-12T02:16:24Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "QloApps through 1.7.0 renders back-office list filter POST parameters into HTML input value attributes without escaping them in the list helper template. Attackers can induce authenticated users to submit crafted POST requests with malicious payloads to list controllers, executing arbitrary JavaScript in the victim\u0027s session to read administrative data and perform actions.",
"id": "GHSA-crrq-mjw6-39qp",
"modified": "2026-09-12T03:30:22Z",
"published": "2026-09-12T03:30:22Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-89268"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Qloapps/QloApps/pull/1801"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Qloapps/QloApps/commit/153ec1c8567798bd99155098ecc0a340e38f25bf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Qloapps/QloApps"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/Qloapps/QloApps/blob/v1.7.0/admin/themes/default/template/helpers/list/list_header.tpl"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.vulncheck.com/advisories/qloapps-through-1.7.0-reflected-xss-via-list-filter-parameters"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/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-CRRW-9HQW-FVV6
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-10-05 03:30 – Updated: 2024-10-05 03:30The Themify Builder plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Reflected Cross-Site Scripting due to the use of add_query_arg without appropriate escaping on the URL in all versions up to, and including, 7.6.2. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that execute if they can successfully trick a user into performing an action such as clicking on a link.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-9385"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2024-10-05T02:15:02Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The Themify Builder plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Reflected Cross-Site Scripting due to the use of add_query_arg without appropriate escaping on the URL in all versions up to, and including, 7.6.2. This makes it possible for unauthenticated attackers to inject arbitrary web scripts in pages that execute if they can successfully trick a user into performing an action such as clicking on a link.",
"id": "GHSA-crrw-9hqw-fvv6",
"modified": "2024-10-05T03:30:37Z",
"published": "2024-10-05T03:30:37Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-9385"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/themify-builder/tags/7.6.2/classes/class-themify-builder-model.php#L1121"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/changeset/3162399/themify-builder/trunk/classes/class-themify-builder-model.php"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.wordfence.com/threat-intel/vulnerabilities/id/a83e68e0-1b5b-4fd5-be00-37b8f11144c4?source=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:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
]
}
GHSA-CRV5-9VWW-Q3G8
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-04-22 17:32 – Updated: 2026-04-27 16:32Summary
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Severity | Medium |
| Affected | DOMPurify main at 883ac15, introduced in v1.0.10 (7fc196db) |
SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES strips {{...}} expressions from untrusted HTML. This works in string mode but not with RETURN_DOM or RETURN_DOM_FRAGMENT, allowing XSS via template-evaluating frameworks like Vue 2.
Technical Details
DOMPurify strips template expressions in two passes:
- Per-node — each text node is checked during the tree walk (
purify.ts:1179-1191):
// pass #1: runs on every text node during tree walk
if (SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES && currentNode.nodeType === NODE_TYPE.text) {
content = currentNode.textContent;
content = content.replace(MUSTACHE_EXPR, ' '); // {{...}} -> ' '
content = content.replace(ERB_EXPR, ' '); // <%...%> -> ' '
content = content.replace(TMPLIT_EXPR, ' '); // ${... -> ' '
currentNode.textContent = content;
}
- Final string scrub — after serialization, the full HTML string is scrubbed again (
purify.ts:1679-1683). This is the safety net that catches expressions that only form after the DOM settles.
The RETURN_DOM path returns before pass #2 ever runs (purify.ts:1637-1661):
// purify.ts (simplified)
if (RETURN_DOM) {
// ... build returnNode ...
return returnNode; // <-- exits here, pass #2 never runs
}
// pass #2: only reached by string-mode callers
if (SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES) {
serializedHTML = serializedHTML.replace(MUSTACHE_EXPR, ' ');
}
return serializedHTML;
The payload {<foo></foo>{constructor.constructor('alert(1)')()}<foo></foo>} exploits this:
- Parser creates:
TEXT("{")→<foo>→TEXT("{payload}")→<foo>→TEXT("}")— no single node contains{{, so pass #1 misses it <foo>is not allowed, so DOMPurify removes it but keeps surrounding text- The three text nodes are now adjacent —
.outerHTMLreads them as{{payload}}, which Vue 2 compiles and executes
Reproduce
Open the following html in any browser and alert(1) pops up.
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<body>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/dompurify@3.3.3/dist/purify.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/vue@2.7.16/dist/vue.min.js"></script>
<script>
var dirty = '<div id="app">{<foo></foo>{constructor.constructor("alert(1)")()}<foo></foo>}</div>';
var dom = DOMPurify.sanitize(dirty, { SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES: true, RETURN_DOM: true });
document.body.appendChild(dom.firstChild);
new Vue({ el: '#app' });
</script>
</body>
</html>
Impact
Any application that sanitizes attacker-controlled HTML with SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES: true and RETURN_DOM: true (or RETURN_DOM_FRAGMENT: true), then mounts the result into a template-evaluating framework, is vulnerable to XSS.
Recommendations
Fix
normalize() merges the split text nodes, then the same regex from the string path catches the expression. Placed before the fragment logic, this fixes both RETURN_DOM and RETURN_DOM_FRAGMENT.
if (RETURN_DOM) {
+ if (SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES) {
+ body.normalize();
+ let html = body.innerHTML;
+ arrayForEach([MUSTACHE_EXPR, ERB_EXPR, TMPLIT_EXPR], (expr: RegExp) => {
+ html = stringReplace(html, expr, ' ');
+ });
+ body.innerHTML = html;
+ }
+
if (RETURN_DOM_FRAGMENT) {
returnNode = createDocumentFragment.call(body.ownerDocument);
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "npm",
"name": "dompurify"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.0.10"
},
{
"fixed": "3.4.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2026-41239"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-1289",
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2026-04-22T17:32:54Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2026-04-23T16:16:26Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "## Summary\n\n| Field | Value |\n|:------|:------|\n| **Severity** | Medium |\n| **Affected** | DOMPurify `main` at [`883ac15`](https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/tree/883ac15d47f907cb1a3b5a152fe90c4d8c10f9e6), introduced in v1.0.10 ([`7fc196db`](https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/commit/7fc196db0b42a0c360262dba0cc39c9c91bfe1ec)) |\n\n`SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES` strips `{{...}}` expressions from untrusted HTML. This works in string mode but not with `RETURN_DOM` or `RETURN_DOM_FRAGMENT`, allowing XSS via template-evaluating frameworks like Vue 2.\n\n## Technical Details\n\nDOMPurify strips template expressions in two passes:\n\n1. **Per-node** \u2014 each text node is checked during the tree walk ([`purify.ts:1179-1191`](https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/blob/883ac15d47f907cb1a3b5a152fe90c4d8c10f9e6/src/purify.ts#L1179-L1191)):\n\n```js\n// pass #1: runs on every text node during tree walk\nif (SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES \u0026\u0026 currentNode.nodeType === NODE_TYPE.text) {\n content = currentNode.textContent;\n content = content.replace(MUSTACHE_EXPR, \u0027 \u0027); // {{...}} -\u003e \u0027 \u0027\n content = content.replace(ERB_EXPR, \u0027 \u0027); // \u003c%...%\u003e -\u003e \u0027 \u0027\n content = content.replace(TMPLIT_EXPR, \u0027 \u0027); // ${... -\u003e \u0027 \u0027\n currentNode.textContent = content;\n}\n```\n\n2. **Final string scrub** \u2014 after serialization, the full HTML string is scrubbed again ([`purify.ts:1679-1683`](https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/blob/883ac15d47f907cb1a3b5a152fe90c4d8c10f9e6/src/purify.ts#L1679-L1683)). This is the safety net that catches expressions that only form after the DOM settles.\n\nThe `RETURN_DOM` path returns before pass #2 ever runs ([`purify.ts:1637-1661`](https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/blob/883ac15d47f907cb1a3b5a152fe90c4d8c10f9e6/src/purify.ts#L1637-L1661)):\n\n```js\n// purify.ts (simplified)\n\nif (RETURN_DOM) {\n // ... build returnNode ...\n return returnNode; // \u003c-- exits here, pass #2 never runs\n}\n\n// pass #2: only reached by string-mode callers\nif (SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES) {\n serializedHTML = serializedHTML.replace(MUSTACHE_EXPR, \u0027 \u0027);\n}\nreturn serializedHTML;\n```\n\nThe payload `{\u003cfoo\u003e\u003c/foo\u003e{constructor.constructor(\u0027alert(1)\u0027)()}\u003cfoo\u003e\u003c/foo\u003e}` exploits this:\n\n1. Parser creates: `TEXT(\"{\")` \u2192 `\u003cfoo\u003e` \u2192 `TEXT(\"{payload}\")` \u2192 `\u003cfoo\u003e` \u2192 `TEXT(\"}\")` \u2014 no single node contains `{{`, so pass #1 misses it\n2. `\u003cfoo\u003e` is not allowed, so DOMPurify removes it but keeps surrounding text\n3. The three text nodes are now adjacent \u2014 `.outerHTML` reads them as `{{payload}}`, which Vue 2 compiles and executes\n\n## Reproduce\n\nOpen the following html in any browser and `alert(1)` pops up.\n\n```html\n\u003c!DOCTYPE html\u003e\n\u003chtml\u003e\n\n\u003cbody\u003e\n \u003cscript src=\"https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/dompurify@3.3.3/dist/purify.min.js\"\u003e\u003c/script\u003e\n \u003cscript src=\"https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/vue@2.7.16/dist/vue.min.js\"\u003e\u003c/script\u003e\n \u003cscript\u003e\n var dirty = \u0027\u003cdiv id=\"app\"\u003e{\u003cfoo\u003e\u003c/foo\u003e{constructor.constructor(\"alert(1)\")()}\u003cfoo\u003e\u003c/foo\u003e}\u003c/div\u003e\u0027;\n var dom = DOMPurify.sanitize(dirty, { SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES: true, RETURN_DOM: true });\n document.body.appendChild(dom.firstChild);\n new Vue({ el: \u0027#app\u0027 });\n \u003c/script\u003e\n\u003c/body\u003e\n\n\u003c/html\u003e\n```\n\n## Impact\n\nAny application that sanitizes attacker-controlled HTML with `SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES: true` and `RETURN_DOM: true` (or `RETURN_DOM_FRAGMENT: true`), then mounts the result into a template-evaluating framework, is vulnerable to XSS.\n\n## Recommendations\n\n### Fix\n\n`normalize()` merges the split text nodes, then the same regex from the string path catches the expression. Placed before the fragment logic, this fixes both `RETURN_DOM` and `RETURN_DOM_FRAGMENT`.\n\n```diff\n if (RETURN_DOM) {\n+ if (SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES) {\n+ body.normalize();\n+ let html = body.innerHTML;\n+ arrayForEach([MUSTACHE_EXPR, ERB_EXPR, TMPLIT_EXPR], (expr: RegExp) =\u003e {\n+ html = stringReplace(html, expr, \u0027 \u0027);\n+ });\n+ body.innerHTML = html;\n+ }\n+\n if (RETURN_DOM_FRAGMENT) {\n returnNode = createDocumentFragment.call(body.ownerDocument);\n```",
"id": "GHSA-crv5-9vww-q3g8",
"modified": "2026-04-27T16:32:12Z",
"published": "2026-04-22T17:32:54Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/security/advisories/GHSA-crv5-9vww-q3g8"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-41239"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/cure53/DOMPurify/releases/tag/3.4.0"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "DOMPurify has a SAFE_FOR_TEMPLATES bypass in RETURN_DOM mode"
}
GHSA-CRV7-59VP-4G5M
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-17 02:26 – Updated: 2022-05-17 02:26A vulnerability in Cisco Secure Access Control System (ACS) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to conduct a DOM-based cross-site scripting (XSS) attack against the user of the web interface of the affected system. More Information: CSCvc04838. Known Affected Releases: 5.8(2.5).
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2017-3838"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2017-02-22T02:59:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "A vulnerability in Cisco Secure Access Control System (ACS) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to conduct a DOM-based cross-site scripting (XSS) attack against the user of the web interface of the affected system. More Information: CSCvc04838. Known Affected Releases: 5.8(2.5).",
"id": "GHSA-crv7-59vp-4g5m",
"modified": "2022-05-17T02:26:23Z",
"published": "2022-05-17T02:26:23Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2017-3838"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20170215-acs"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/96234"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securitytracker.com/id/1037835"
}
],
"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-CRV8-9H6W-Q3J9
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-01 23:39 – Updated: 2022-05-01 23:39Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in search.php in Gallarific allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the query parameter. NOTE: the provenance of this information is unknown; the details are obtained solely from third party information.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2008-1326"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2008-03-13T14:44:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in search.php in Gallarific allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the query parameter. NOTE: the provenance of this information is unknown; the details are obtained solely from third party information.",
"id": "GHSA-crv8-9h6w-q3j9",
"modified": "2022-05-01T23:39:06Z",
"published": "2022-05-01T23:39:06Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2008-1326"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://exchange.xforce.ibmcloud.com/vulnerabilities/41105"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://downloads.securityfocus.com/vulnerabilities/exploits/28163.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://secunia.com/advisories/29399"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/28163"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-CRV9-FFQ3-3QMH
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-02-02 00:01 – Updated: 2022-02-05 00:00The UpdraftPlus WordPress Backup Plugin WordPress plugin before 1.16.69 does not sanitise and escape the updraft_restore parameter before outputting it back in the Restore page, leading to a Reflected Cross-Site Scripting
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2021-25089"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2022-02-01T13:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "The UpdraftPlus WordPress Backup Plugin WordPress plugin before 1.16.69 does not sanitise and escape the updraft_restore parameter before outputting it back in the Restore page, leading to a Reflected Cross-Site Scripting",
"id": "GHSA-crv9-ffq3-3qmh",
"modified": "2022-02-05T00:00:44Z",
"published": "2022-02-02T00:01:47Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2021-25089"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://wpscan.com/vulnerability/5adb977e-f7bf-4d36-b625-87bc23d379c8"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
GHSA-CRVF-8FRR-387Q
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 03:10 – Updated: 2022-05-14 03:10Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the office-web component in Open-Xchange OX App Suite before 7.8.3-rev12 and 7.8.4 before 7.8.4-rev9 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted presentation file, related to copying content to the clipboard.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2018-5754"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2018-06-16T01:29:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the office-web component in Open-Xchange OX App Suite before 7.8.3-rev12 and 7.8.4 before 7.8.4-rev9 allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted presentation file, related to copying content to the clipboard.",
"id": "GHSA-crvf-8frr-387q",
"modified": "2022-05-14T03:10:57Z",
"published": "2022-05-14T03:10:57Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-5754"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/44881"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://packetstormsecurity.com/files/148118/OX-App-Suite-7.8.4-XSS-Privilege-Management-SSRF-Traversal.html"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2018/Jun/23"
}
],
"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-CRVG-XV76-F4PQ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-02-01 06:30 – Updated: 2023-02-08 18:30Cross-site Scripting (XSS) - Stored in GitHub repository projectsend/projectsend prior to r1606.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-0607"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2023-02-01T04:15:00Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "Cross-site Scripting (XSS) - Stored in GitHub repository projectsend/projectsend prior to r1606.",
"id": "GHSA-crvg-xv76-f4pq",
"modified": "2023-02-08T18:30:24Z",
"published": "2023-02-01T06:30:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-0607"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/projectsend/projectsend/commit/698be4ade1db6ae0eaf27c843a03ffc9683cca0a"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://huntr.dev/bounties/9294743d-7818-4264-b973-59de027d549b"
}
],
"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-CRVM-XJHM-9H29
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2025-11-04 15:42 – Updated: 2025-11-07 16:42Impact
OctoPrint versions up to and including 1.11.3 are affected by a vulnerability that allows injection of arbitrary HTML and JavaScript into Action Command notification and prompt popups generated by the printer.
An attacker who successfully convinces a victim to print a specially crafted file could exploit this issue to disrupt ongoing prints, extract information (including sensitive configuration settings, if the targeted user has the necessary permissions for that), or perform other actions on behalf of the targeted user within the OctoPrint instance.
Patches
The vulnerability will be patched in version 1.11.4.
Workaround
OctoPrint administrators can mitigate the risk by disabling popups: - for Action Command notifications, uncheck OctoPrint Settings -> Printer Notifications -> Enable popups - for Action Command prompts, set OctoPrint Settings -> Printer Dialogs -> Enable support -> Never
It is also strongly recommended to ensure that files being printed originate from trusted sources, and, whenever possible, are sliced with your own slicer.
Credits
This vulnerability was discovered and responsibly disclosed to OctoPrint by Jacopo Tediosi.
{
"affected": [
{
"database_specific": {
"last_known_affected_version_range": "\u003c= 1.11.3"
},
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "octoprint"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "1.11.4"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-64187"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-79",
"CWE-80"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2025-11-04T15:42:48Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2025-11-07T04:15:47Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nOctoPrint versions up to and including 1.11.3 are affected by a vulnerability that allows injection of arbitrary HTML and JavaScript into Action Command notification and prompt popups generated by the printer.\n\nAn attacker who successfully convinces a victim to print a specially crafted file could exploit this issue to disrupt ongoing prints, extract information (including sensitive configuration settings, if the targeted user has the necessary permissions for that), or perform other actions on behalf of the targeted user within the OctoPrint instance.\n\n### Patches\n\nThe vulnerability will be patched in version 1.11.4.\n\n### Workaround\n\nOctoPrint administrators can mitigate the risk by disabling popups:\n- for Action Command notifications, uncheck _OctoPrint Settings -\u003e Printer Notifications -\u003e Enable popups_\n- for Action Command prompts, set _OctoPrint Settings -\u003e Printer Dialogs -\u003e Enable support -\u003e Never_\n\nIt is also strongly recommended to ensure that files being printed originate from trusted sources, and, whenever possible, are sliced with your own slicer.\n\n### Credits\n\nThis vulnerability was discovered and responsibly disclosed to OctoPrint by [Jacopo Tediosi](https://github.com/jacopotediosi).",
"id": "GHSA-crvm-xjhm-9h29",
"modified": "2025-11-07T16:42:35Z",
"published": "2025-11-04T15:42:48Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/OctoPrint/OctoPrint/security/advisories/GHSA-crvm-xjhm-9h29"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-64187"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/OctoPrint/OctoPrint/commit/9112e07b1085f4c1ee9eefc67985809251057a44"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/OctoPrint/OctoPrint"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:L/SI:L/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "OctoPrint vulnerable to XSS in Action Commands Notification and Prompt"
}
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.